The Biblical Revelation of the Cross
Foreword
In the pages that follow, I hope to show from biblical and early Christian sources that the death of Jesus opened the way for the salvation of mankind from the inevitable consequences of sin. His death tore apart the curtain of partition that separated man from God, making possible our atonement. Yet, although He truly suffered and accepted to die for our salvation, it will be shown that His death was not due to the punishment of God. It will be shown that man dies the first death in accordance with his mortality, in keeping with what is natural. It will be explained that the consequence of sin resulted not in man’s mortality, but in the loss of his ability to live forever - a grace of God that was dependent upon man exercising faith and obedience to do His will. Man’s fall from grace deprived him of his ability never to die. Here is what Athanasius of Alexandria (c.293 - 373 AD) wrote:
‘For He brought them into His own garden, and gave them a law: so that, if they kept the grace and remained good, they might still keep the life in paradise without sorrow or pain or care besides having the promise of incorruption in heaven; but that if they transgressed and turned back, and became evil, they might know that they were incurring that corruption in death which was theirs by nature: no longer to live in paradise, but cast out of it from that time forth to die and to abide in death and in corruption.’
(Athanasius, The Incarnation, 3:4; A. Robertson, P. Schaff, 1891)
‘For man is by nature mortal, inasmuch as he is made out of what is not; but by reason of his likeness to Him that is (and if he still preserved this likeness by keeping Him in his knowledge) he would stay his natural corruption, and remain incorrupt…’
(Athanasius, The Incarnation, 4:6; A. Robertson, P. Schaff, 1891)
This is biblical:
In the Genesis account, Adam was created mortal, but with the grace to live forever – by reason of the ‘tree of life’ that was in the garden, of which he could eat. This grace was removed when the judgment was passed because of Adam’s sin: ‘Now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever …God sent him out of the garden of Eden’ (3:22-23, NKJ). Mankind thereafter lived and died as any other creature, according to his mortality. The judgment upon Adam, therefore, was not that he should become mortal (for this was how man was created), but that he should be denied everlasting life. Mankind was taken away from the grace that was freely allowed him in the beginning. But now, through the incarnation, death and resurrection of the Word Himself, a restoration of this grace has been revealed. This is the Gospel. Metaphorically speaking, therefore, Jesus - the ‘true vine’ (John 15:1) and ‘the resurrection and the life’ (John 11:25) - is Himself ‘the tree of life’ of whom all who eat, by God’s grace, may live forever.
(The Biblical Revelation of the Cross: ‘Atonement in Athanasius of Alexandria’ )
The first death is not the punishment of God, but that which is natural to our mortality. The second death, according to Scripture, will be the judgment of God. Jesus, it will be shown, did not suffer this punishment for sin. He assumed a mortal body, the Bible reveals, and offered to God a perfect sacrifice without sin. His death completed His incarnation for mankind, through which He revealed the love of God in perfect righteousness. His life was poured out for our sakes as the acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God. Now, all who follow Him in faith are accepted with Him. In ‘Adam’ all die, but ‘in Christ’ all shall live.
Since the publication of ‘The Biblical Revelation of the Cross’ in 2006, I have felt the need to make additions to the text of chapters 1, 2 and 3 and to make a major revision to the original text and views expressed in Chapter 2, under the sub-headings: ‘The Day of Atonement’ and ‘Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ’. An explanation for these changes follows.
The additional ‘notes’ occur under the following sub-headings:
Chapter 1
‘For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us’: Notes on the translations of 2 Cor.5:21
‘When He cried to Him He heard’: Note on Romans 15:3
Chapter 2
‘The Day of Atonement’: Revision note: ‘Reflections from writings of early Church fathers’
Chapter 3
‘He bore the sin of many’: Note
‘When You make His soul an offering for sin’: Note on Jewish and English translations of Isaiah 53
Addenda: ‘Atonement in Athanasius of Alexandria’ (’Irenaeus’ and other Church fathers to follow)
As often is the case, after publication of a work, one’s understanding develops and grows with further study and reflection, so it is now. Essentially, however, the book remains a Bible Study, which is how it was conceived. Since 1982, the atonement has been the foremost subject of my meditation. By the year 2000, I had enough material to begin writing a book - and this book just evolved slowly during my time in Beijing, China, where I was resident. Before that, I was living in Tripoli, Libya - for nine years. In Tripoli, I had become very involved with the expatriate Union Church and served on the board and spoke occasionally as a preacher. During my period out of the UK, I never concerned myself with matters that were affecting Christians at home. Only after publication did I learn that a rather heated debate had ensued in the UK as a result of the publication of a book by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann: The Lost Message of Jesus. My arrangements for the publication of my book were made while I was in Beijing - and I was oblivious to the controversy raging over the presumed criticism of the teaching of penal substitution as an explanation for the death of our Lord. At the time, I had not even heard of Steve Chalke or Alan Mann - but my book did draw some interest from people still concerned with the debate and perhaps presuming that my book was written in response. It wasn’t. My conclusions were reached independently and from an intentional reliance on Scripture as the governing authority.
The change of view expressed in Chapter 2 stems from my reading of early Church writings with respect to the goat chosen in ancient times by lot for ‘Azazel’ on the Jewish feast day called the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). I came to realize that my position had to be revised - hence the change, and the subsequent change with regard to the view expressed in the section concerning Barabbas. However, as stated in one of the notes, I recognize that the changes do not detract from the overall message of the book. In fact, quite the opposite, as Justin remarked (c.AD 150): ‘No curse lies on the Christ of God.’ Though cursed, rejected and regarded as sin by man, He was received as the Lamb without blemish by God. His victory over sin was our victory also, if we are in Christ.
The original preface remains unchanged and it is hoped to be helpful as an introduction.
Norman McIlwain
January, 2009
Preface
In considering the cross, we can take either a negative or a positive point of view, depending on our doctrinal heritage and interpretation of Scripture. The Bible clearly states these two perspectives: one from the position of the world and the other from the position of God. We can take the view that Jesus at the cross had become the embodiment of sin and all that is morally detestable—as He was viewed by those who killed Him; or, we can take the opposite point of view and see Jesus crucified as He was judged by the One who raised Him from the dead—as the embodiment of righteousness.
Today, most Christians are still adhering to tenets that originated in an age of bigotry, injustice and intolerance. It was a sorrowful time when many church leaders and pillars of reform advocated tyrannical oppression of all who were deemed heretics or religious opponents. Consider, for example, the notorious tortures and executions inflicted by Roman Catholics and Protestants for heresy during periods of religious conflict. The Inquisition of Rome has been well documented; however, the execution by drowning of Baptists in Calvin’s Geneva; the list of heresies punishable by death drawn up by the English reformer Cranmer (1550); and, sadly, the anti-Semitism of the much esteemed German reformer of the 16th century Martin Luther, might not be so well known.
Towards the end of his life, Luther released a volley of verbal assaults against the Jews. He preached that the age-long sufferings of the Jews proved God’s hatred of them; that they were insolent in their usurious prosperity; that the Jewish ‘Talmud’ sanctioned the deception, murder, robbery and killing of Christians; that they poisoned springs and wells; and that they murdered Christian children to use their blood in Jewish rituals. He advised the Germans to burn down the homes of Jews, to close their synagogues and schools, to confiscate their wealth, to conscript their men and women into forced labour; and wrote, ‘All Jews should be given the choice between either accepting Christ, or having their tongues torn out’ (Concerning the Jews and their lies, 1542). As the renowned historian Will Durant noted (The Age of Faith), such pronouncements set the tone in Germany for hundreds of years—having the height of their fruition during the holocaust.
Much has been swept under the ‘Christian’ carpet that needs to be revealed. Many of the religious authorities and reformers of those days advocated policies which ran counter to the Gospel of love and true justice. Mercy, so central to the Gospel message, had become overshadowed by a negative understanding of the cross of Christ that saw no place for repentance and forgiveness in the justice of God, only punishment by death for sins. The positive view of ‘Christ crucified’ sees the atonement as God’s provision of righteousness for us through the One who embodied righteousness at the cross. He is the Holy and Righteous One who offered Himself unblemished to God, through the eternal Spirit, as a fragrant offering and sacrifice for the sake of all who truly believe. He ‘submitted Himself to the One who judges righteously’ and not to the justice of man, receiving from God the justice of the resurrection—being raised to heavenly glory. This is the Gospel that needs to be preached.
‘The Biblical Revelation of the Cross’ is a study of the Bible that explains the Gospel of Christ and the apostles as it was known to the first Christians, relying entirely upon the authority of the Holy Scriptures to present the biblical view—the positive view of the atonement. Keep an open mind, yet be like the Bereans who were praised by the Apostle Paul for zealously checking the Scriptures to see if what he said was true (Acts 17:11).
Norman McIlwain
2006
Athanasius (c.293 - 373 AD) holds a revered position in Church history due to the stand he took in the 4th century to defend the faith against destructive heretical views that challenged the true nature of God. In a study of the atonement, therefore, it is helpful to consider the understanding this most influential leader of the early Church expressed on this most important topic.
We might begin with his letter to Epictetus (bishop of Corinth, c. 370 A.D.), in which he refers to how one should understand the curse that Paul said Christ had become:
‘…the Word Himself was not changed into bones and flesh, but came in the flesh. For what John said, ‘The Word was made flesh,’ has this meaning, as we may see by a similar passage; for it is written in Paul: ‘Christ has become a curse for us.’ And just as He has not Himself become a curse, but is said to have done so because He took upon Him the curse on our behalf, so also He has become flesh not by being changed into flesh, but because He assumed on our behalf living flesh, and has become Man’ (Athanasius, Letter LIX.— To Epictetus, 8, A. Robertson, P. Schaff, 1891).
By extension, and using this same reasoning, therefore, it may be said that Jesus was made sin, not that He Himself was made sin, but is said to have been made so because He took upon Himself the likeness of sinful flesh on our behalf. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, therefore, but was Himself without sin. The flesh that He assumed ‘of the seed of David’ (2 Tim.2:8) through Mary was of itself mortal, such as everyman, but without the corruption of sin. So we find the like view expressed, that the whole Word has not become a curse or sin – not Himself – but the body He assumed:
For, as when John says, ‘The Word was made flesh we do not conceive the whole Word Himself to be flesh , but to have put on flesh and become man, and on hearing, ‘Christ hath become a curse for us,’ and ‘He hath made Him sin for us who knew no sin ,’ we do not simply conceive this, that whole Christ has become curse and sin, but that He has taken on Him the curse which lay against us, as the Apostle has said, ‘Has redeemed us from the curse,’ and ‘has carried,’ as Isaiah has said, ‘our sins,’ and as Peter has written, ‘has borne them in the body on the wood ’ (Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos IV, Discourse II, XiX:47, A. Robertson, P. Schaff, 1891).
In one sense, therefore, Jesus was said to have become a curse, but not in Himself. Likewise, the Word was said to have become sin and to have borne our sins, but in a bodily sense. Athanasius applies the comparison as something self-evident to show that we need to apply these statements with distinction and not to presume the Word Himself became a curse or sin. Augustine of Hippo (354-450 AD), was to reason similarly, saying that the Word, although without sin Himself, was said to have been ‘made sin’ because He not only came in the likeness of sinful flesh but was also a sin offering. These sacrifices for sin, he explained, were called ‘sins’ by the Hebrews. It was not that He was personally made sin Himself, but that He was made a sacrifice for sin:
‘…therefore having no sin of His own; nevertheless, on account of the likeness of sinful flesh in which He came, He was called sin, that He might be sacrificed to wash away sin. For, under the Old Covenant, sacrifices for sin were called sins. And He, of whom all these sacrifices were types and shadows, was Himself truly made sin. Hence the apostle, after saying, “We pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God,” forthwith adds: “for He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him….“Him who knew no sin,” that is, Christ, God, to whom we are to be reconciled, “hath made to be sin for us,” that is, hath made Him a sacrifice for our sins, by which we might be reconciled to God. He, then, being made sin, just as we are made righteousness (our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him)’ (Augustine, The Enchiridion, 41, P. Schaff, 1891).
It is interesting to note Augustine’s summarizing remark that we are not made righteous in ourselves, but in Christ - and that the opposite of this is also true. Jesus was not made sin in Himself, but in the likeness of sinful flesh, in which He became a sacrifice for sin.
In explaining the incarnation of the Word, Athanasius laid much stress on the fact that Jesus remained incorruptible. His offering to the Father was as a second Adam, without sin.
In the Genesis account, Adam was created mortal, but with the grace to live forever – by reason of the ‘tree of life’ that was in the garden, of which he could eat. This grace was removed when the judgment was passed because of Adam’s sin: ‘Now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever …God sent him out of the garden of Eden’ (3:22-23, NKJ). Mankind thereafter lived and died as any other creature, according to his mortality. The judgment upon Adam, therefore, was not that he should become mortal (for this was how man was created), but that he should be denied everlasting life. Mankind was taken away from the grace that was freely allowed him in the beginning. But now, through the incarnation, death and resurrection of the Word Himself, a restoration of this grace has been revealed. This is the Gospel. Metaphorically speaking, therefore, Jesus - the ‘true vine’ (John 15:1) and ‘the resurrection and the life’ (John 11:25) - is Himself ‘the tree of life’ of whom all who eat, by God’s grace, may live forever.
Upon becoming incarnate, the Word assumed a mortal body no different from any other human body. However, the fact that His body was prophesied not to suffer corruption (‘For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption,’ Ps.16:10; Acts 2:27, NKJ) inferred its resurrection, not that it would not die. The body was mortal in the same manner that all men are mortal:
‘The body, then, as sharing the same nature with all, for it was a human body, though by an unparalleled miracle it was formed of a virgin only, yet being mortal, was to die also, conformably to its peers. But by virtue of the union of the Word with it, it was no longer subject to corruption according to its own nature, but by reason of the Word that was come to dwell in it it was placed out of the reach of corruption’ (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 20:4, A. Robertson, P. Schaff, 1891).
Athanasius wrote ‘On the Incarnation’ when still a young man and a deacon in the service of bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Nevertheless, it is a work that he believed reflected the received doctrine of the Alexandrian church. The body of Jesus, he said, was surrendered to death ‘free from every stain’ in order to fulfil ‘all that was required’:
‘He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required’ (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, section 9, Translated by C.S.M.V., St. Th., 1944).
One might ask, ‘What was required?’ Jesus fulfilled ‘all that was required’. It was not simply the death of His human body, given as an offering and sacrifice. The body He offered up had to be free of the corruption of sin. As our High Priest, He made the offering of His life in substitution for our lives in complete and sinless perfection. This offering unto death was our debt – not a penalty. This was what man owed to God. The body of Jesus had remained ‘incorruptible’ by His very presence. It was surrendered to death ‘free from every stain’, by reason of which death had no hold upon it. The resurrection was the verification. Notice, Athanasius did not say that Jesus had surrendered His body to death to pay a penalty; he said that Jesus had surrendered Himself as an ‘offering and sacrifice’. ‘Offerings’ are not penal fines. The sacrifice He made was pure and undefiled. It was required that mankind should live and die without sin. To be acceptable to God, man had to fulfill his mortal life in righteousness. Through the ‘second Adam’, Christ, this was achieved.
The consequence of Adam’s sin, though ushering in death upon mankind, in no wise subjected the body or person of Jesus to corruption or alienation from God – as He Himself was ‘God with us’ (Mat.1:23). He was ‘the life’ and had within the power of life in union with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, His body was allowed to die in conformity to the mortality of man, according to the divine purpose. However, the body that died upon the cross was merely the temple - a distinct entity. The body was not the Word Himself, even though in the flesh Jesus, the Word, is said to have died.
As Athanasius stated: ‘…the Body [of the Word] … is not the Word Himself, but a distinct entity (Athanasius, Letter LIX.— To Epictetus, 9, A. Robertson, P. Schaff, 1891).
The Word is by nature and essence God, though clothed with humanity: ‘…from Mary the Word Himself took flesh, and proceeded forth as man; being by nature and essence the Word of God, but after the flesh man of the seed of David, and made of the flesh of Mary’ (Athanasius, Letter LIX.—To Epictetus, 12, A. Robertson, P. Schaff, 1891).
By accepting to die in the flesh, Jesus not only paid with His life all that was needed for the salvation of His brethren, but also revealed the truth of the resurrection and gave assurance of life after death through faith.
He accomplished the divine will by entering fully into our humanity and by sharing in our mortality - even death - that to which men are held in fear all their lives (Heb.2:15). The body that Jesus assumed through Mary, of Adam, though mortal and able to die, was made incorruptible through the indwelling of the Word. It should be clear, therefore, that the judgment and penalty upon Adam was not imparted to the body of Christ. Rather, the incarnation brought the reverse of this: restoration and healing.
The body He assumed was mortal in the same manner as the body of the first man, Adam, was mortal. This was how man was created. The human body is capable of death, as are the bodies of all creatures. The difference is that, by the grace of God, man can be appointed to receive everlasting life. From this grace man fell through sin and so has lived in separation from God and the life that is by His grace. Man has suffered the death that is natural to his flesh, deprived of the grace to live forever. Because of sin, therefore, man has been condemned to that which is natural to his mortality. Jesus came in the flesh of mortal man as the Son of God - ‘God with us’, having oneness of being with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Though also fully human, God’s beloved Son had no loss of divine grace or favour. The second Adam knew no corruption and lived in perfect righteousness and unity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The judgment that was upon Adam, therefore, was not imparted to the incarnate Word. Jesus came as One justified of God and of the Holy Spirit; but He also came as One who would be condemned to die of man. His death was not the punishment of God. Upon the righteous, the penalty of death cannot justly be applied.
What, then, did His death achieve? The manner of the death of Jesus was foreknown and foretold of God. This is not the same as saying that it was pre-planned of God, as though God made people act in a certain way. Nevertheless, the known outcome of events was not avoided, as though something of which even God should fear. Death of the body, although terrible for man, held no terror for God. As John wrote, ‘There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment’ (1 John 4:18, NKJ) – and the love of Christ was no less perfect. Jesus allowed Himself to be unjustly taken and cruelly killed. His human body succumbed to death upon the cross. His Spirit was received by the Father. The evil powers believed they could defeat Him with insults, torments and death. How wrong and blind they were! Neither torments nor death had any power over the perfect love of God.
His death achieved completion. With His dying breath He said: ‘It is finished’ (John 19:30).
At that moment of death, the judgment of God that had come through Adam upon all flesh for sin was annulled. Mortal man once more had opportunity to eat again of the Tree of Life and live forever in oneness with God. His death brought to completion ‘all that was required’.
What God required of man was for him to be righteous – to be holy – to exercise faith and godly love, without any stain of corruption: ‘God has made man, and willed that he should abide in incorruption’ (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 4:4, A. Robertson, P. Schaff, 1891). This was to be man’s offering to God – a life of faithful obedience to the law of love, without the corruption of sin. This was the debt that Jesus, fulfilling through the incarnation, completed for us at the cross.
Irenaeus was to call our Lord’s fulfillment of this debt the ‘recapitulation’. His incarnation was as a second Adam, in holiness and without sin, whose offspring inherit everlasting life, not death.
To Athanasius, the incarnation was the key element to understanding our deliverance: ‘…the Word Himself was made flesh, and being in the Form of God, took the form of a servant and from Mary after the flesh became man for us, and that thus in Him the human race is perfectly and wholly delivered from sin and quickened from the dead, and given access to the kingdom of the heavens’ (Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochinos, section 7, A. Robertson, P. Schaff, 1891).
The judgment on Adam had required that all should die; now it is, by the grace of God, that all in Christ should live. His life can cover our own just as the Lord prophesied through Isaiah that He Himself would clothe the faithful with ‘the garments of salvation’ and ‘the robe of righteousness’ (Isa.61:10, NKJ). All who truly believe are appointed to receive everlasting life. The necessity for man’s mortal body to die has now been removed, though it must be changed. Mortality must put on immortality; corruption, incorruption: ‘We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed’ (1Cor.15:51, NKJ). Similarly, Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, ‘For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout …then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord’ (1Thes.4:15-16, NKJ). Although still mortal, the faithful in Christ are set free from all condemnation for sin.
Athanasius wrote that ‘…by the offering of His own body He abolished the death which they had incurred’ (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, section 10, C.S.M.V., 1944). Jesus offered up His body and thus His life for the sake of His brethren, so that they need not die. His life ‘covers over’ the lives of the faithful, by which all in Him are judged righteous and appointed to life. It is thus by His death that we might be set free from death ourselves. If in Christ we are accounted to have offered up the life God has willed for us, then life everlasting will indeed be our reward and death for us abolished.
It is written in Hebrews 9:27: ‘It is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment’ (NKJ). The New English Bible has it: ‘It is the lot of men to die once, and after death comes judgment.’ - Judgment follows death. The first death is not the final judgment of God for our sins. It is simply that to which mortal man is appointed. It is not the second death of which we read in Matthew: ‘And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell [Gr. Gehenna]’ (Mat.10:28, NKJ). In Revelation, it is written: ‘Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power …’ (Rev.20:4, NKJ). ‘The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death’ (Rev.20:13-14, NKJ). Clearly Jesus did not pay this penalty.
Man became appointed to die according to his mortality when denied everlasting life because of sin. This, as said, was the judgment that came upon Adam and all mankind. It was to this death that man was made liable and it was to this death that Jesus died. Athanasius wrote of the Word that He saw ‘death reigning over all in corruption’ and that ‘He saw also their universal liability to sin …Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men’ (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, section 8, C.S.M.V., 1944).
As previously noted, offerings are not penalties imposed as punishments. In offering His body to the Father, He did not pay a penal debt. At no time was Jesus subject to the condemnation of God, but He did subject Himself to the death that is natural to our bodies - to which all mankind became liable due to sin. His body died, howbeit on a cross for all to see, free from sin and corruption. Jesus, therefore, unlawfully put to death at the hands of sinners, rose again and abolished the law of death for all who live in Him. Upon Jesus, the law of death for sin had no force - against Him death has no power.
Now, by God’s grace, there is ‘no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus’ (Rom.8:1, NKJ). The Word acted ‘out of sheer love for us,’ Athanasius remarked. He fulfilled all righteousness in our stead as the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, that we should be justified before God and set free to live according to the law of the Spirit of life.
The sin of Adam had brought death upon mankind, just as the Lord had said: ‘Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die’ (Gen.2:16-17, NKJ). ‘On the Incarnation’ has this focus. It was ‘unthinkable that God, the Father of Truth,’ Athanasius wrote, ‘should go back upon His word regarding death in order to ensure our continued existence’ (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, section 7, C.S.M.V., 1944).
Man is called upon to die. This is the stark message of Scripture. How we die depends upon our response to the Gospel. We can either ’surely die’ in our sins, or we can die in Christ. If we die in our sins, then judgment awaits – and the final death. If we die in Christ, then heaven awaits – and life forevermore. To enter life, we must first lose it (Mat.16:25) - the ‘old man’, i.e. the old self needs to die (Rom.6:4-8). Hence the figure of baptism, signifying that in Christ the old self is accounted to have died that we might be raised with Him, in the newness of the Spirit.
The Son of Man submitted His body to the death that He Himself as the Word had pronounced upon mankind. It was not something of which He feared. Death had no dread for the source of life. His body was capable of dying as any other, according to its mortality, but the body ‘is not the Word’ – the body ‘is a distinct entity’. The Word Himself cannot die. Yet, through the death that He suffered in body, Jesus completed all that God had required of man – perfectly, without corruption.
It is owing that man should die. As Man, He died. Athanasius wrote: ‘For there was need of death, and death must needs be suffered on behalf of all, that the debt owing from all might be paid. Whence, as I said before, the Word, since it was not possible for Him to die, as He was immortal, took to Himself a body such as could die, that He might offer it as His own in the stead of all, and as suffering, through His union with it, on behalf of all’ (Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 20:5-6, A. Robertson, P. Schaff, 1891).
The debt owing from all was paid through the death of Jesus. In the body, He offered up His life. It was not a debt paid by death per se, but by reason of the One who died. He gave the life that we ourselves are indebted to give if we are to be found acceptable to God: a life of holiness, without any stain of corruption. This is our liability. This is the debt that we owe, that He paid in full.
By faith, our bodies, though they die, will be raised incorruptible. Now, blessed with the assurance of the Holy Spirit, through whom we have new life in Christ, we wait in the hope of the resurrection: ‘We also who have the firstfruit of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of the body’ (Rom.8:23, NKJ).
To Athanasius, it was clear that with the fall of man from grace into sin came a corruption of man’s nature which had to be addressed. However, mere repentance for past sins and forgiveness alone could not alter man’s fallen condition. He needed regeneration - and the incarnation made this possible. Through the justification that comes by the offering that the Word made on our behalf is given the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and new birth in Christ. Made holy by the covering atonement that Jesus has provided, all who turn to the Lord in faith receive the promise of God. The incarnation brought the revelation and salvation of the Almighty, restoring mankind to fellowship and to a walk with God in a new and living way. It was a vital act towards the creation of man in God’s own image.
‘“But you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” [1 Cor.6:11]. And when writing to Titus, he said, “But when the kindness and love of God our Saviour appeared, not because of righteous deeds that we had done, but because of his mercy he saved us through the bath of rebirth and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that we may be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life”’ [Titus 3:4-7]
(Athanasius, Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit, Letter 1:22; cf. Athanasius, Khaled Anatolios, Routledge, 2004, p. 222; text source: Migne’s Patrologia Graeca 26:529-576).
*******
“There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life” - This was the advert placed on 200 London buses today. A further 600 are planned for buses throughout the country.
Well, it is funny! An advert placed by ‘atheists’ that suggests there is room for doubt!
Can sin be enjoyable? Of course it can. See the chance to defraud another person and walk away free and richer - yes, why not? If no one sees. If no one judges you. You can lie about how you came by the proceeds and just enjoy - lots do! Or, think about having a ’sex buddy’ - or lots of sex buddies. Commit adultery, buy pornography, pay for sex - or just take it however which way you can! Take revenge on those you dislike. Live for yourself - turn the other cheek. Take care of number one. Gratify all your sensual desires as far as possible. Just enjoy! Why not? - You have the free will. Why apply restraints upon your enjoyment if you can get away with it?
Why not? Ask those who have been robbed, cheated or defrauded. Ask the children of broken homes with parents who have shown no regard for the sanctity of marriage. Ask the many who have been subtly enticed, physically abused and then left with mental scars that won’t heal. Ask all those who have been robbed of a loving family upbringing. Ask all the downtrodden, whose silent cries go unheard and unseen by those who turn away. Ask yourself, if such enjoyment is just illusory and deceitful.
Ask yourself if it is really improbable that God should exist when it is thought only a matter of time before man himself ‘creates’ life in the laboratory? Given an eternity of time, is it not far from being improbable that a far greater ‘Creator’ already exists? - We call Him God. One might reasonably debate the manner by which He brought life on this planet into being, but one cannot reasonably debate His existence. Using the logic of evolutionary theory, I said ‘given an eternity of time …’ Indeed, God is called the Eternal - and just as one cannot perceive of a time before eternity, it is impossible that there was ever a time before God. The eternal God has a divine reason for man’s existence here on Earth and He invites man to enjoy abundant life in His presence forever.
There are consequences for a society living according to a lustful nature. There is a moral right and wrong to which the conscience bears witness, if it is not seared by neglect. The call to ‘enjoy life’ as though there is no God - so publicly advertised and tolerated - is a sign of the times. It is typical of our age.
The call of the Church must be: ‘Rejoice! Our God lives!’
Jesus came that we might enjoy all that is truly good - and a life that lasts forever:
‘I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly‘
John 10v10 (NKJ).
Nov
14
‘The Day of Atonement’: Reflections from writings of early Church fathers
Filed Under Atonement
In my book, ‘The Biblical Revelation of the Cross’, I outlined various interpretations that scholars had given to the word ‘azazel’ – as applied to one of two goats chosen by sacred lot in the ritual of the Day of Atonement. My conclusion was that the term should be understood as a proper name – especially as it was used in contraposition to the name of God in the Hebrew text.
One other word contrapositioned to God in Scripture is ‘mammon’ ( ‘riches’ , as trans. from Aramaic): ‘You cannot serve God and mammon’ (Mat.6:24, NKJ). Here, mammon, although not a person, is personified. It is reasonable to believe, therefore, that the term ‘Azazel’, likewise contrapositioned to the name ‘Yahweh’, expresses either a person or a personification standing in opposition to God. The question is, as there were two goats chosen by lot, one for Azazel and one for Yahweh, how are we to understand the symbolism?
The goat chosen by lot ‘for Azazel’ was driven away into the wilderness, bearing the sins of Israel (Leviticus 16). In my book, I expressed the view that this goat personified ‘evil’. However, I now realize that there is more to consider. This I want to share.
The early church writers: Irenaeus (2nd cent.) and Origin (3rd cent.) are known to have held the view that ‘Azazel’ was the name of a demon. Irenaeus, in his book Against Heresies, quoted an unknown ‘elder’ as saying in verse:
“Marcus, thou former of idols, inspector of portents,
Skill’d in consulting the stars, and deep in the black arts of magic,
Ever by tricks such as these confirming the doctrines of error,
Furnishing signs unto those involved by thee in deception,
Wonders of power that is utterly severed from God and apostate,
Which Satan, thy true father, enables thee still to accomplish,
By means of Azazel, that fallen and yet mighty angel,—
Thus making thee the precursor of his own impious actions.”Such are the words of the saintly elder.
Irenaeus Bk 1, Ch.15:6 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff)
Origin of Alexandria (c.AD 182-251) knew Hebrew, wrote profusely on Christian topics and was a respected Christian writer in his own day, although not entirely orthodox. As with Irenaeus, His view of the term ‘Azazel’ expressed an agreement with a teaching that was then already extant:
For the serpent … he who was the author of destruction to them that obeyed him, and did not withstand his wicked deeds … Moreover (the goat), which in the book of Leviticus is sent away (into the wilderness), and which in the Hebrew language is named Azazel, was none other than this; and it was necessary to send it away into the desert, and to treat it as an expiatory sacrifice, because on it the lot fell. For all who belong to the “worse” part, on account of their wickedness, being opposed to those who are God’s heritage, are deserted by God.
Origen, Contra Celsus, Bk 6, 43 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff)
Irenaeus (c. AD 120-200), bishop of Lugdunum, Gaul (now Lyons, France), was a pupil of Polycarp, the revered bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) - who was said to have been ordained by the apostles (Irenaeus: letter to the Roman elder Florinus, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, V. xx, 5 - 6). Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, in several places in his works, quoted from the writings of the second century apologist ‘Justin Martyr’ (c. AD 100-165) and also made reference to him, as shown here:
Truly has Justin remarked that before the Lord’s appearance Satan never dared to blaspheme God, inasmuch as he did not yet know his own sentence, because it was contained in parables and allegories; but that after the Lord’s appearance, when he had clearly ascertained from the words of Christ and his apostles that eternal fire has been prepared for him as he rebelled against God by his own free will, and likewise for all who unrepentant continue in the rebellion, he now blasphemes by means of such men, the Lord who brings judgment upon him as already condemned, and imputes the guilt of his rebellion to his maker, not to his own voluntary disposition.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. 5, 26 (Ante- Nicene Fathers, trans. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson)
The above comments reveal the beliefs that Satan had no understanding of his condemnation until after the resurrection and that he, the devil, imputes the guilt of rebellion to God, his creator - not to himself. Stated in this quote is the belief that Satan imputes the guilt of sin to God.
Irenaeus would also have been familiar with Justin’s comments concerning the atonement. Notice from the following passages just how Justin understood in what manner Jesus had become ‘a curse for us’ (Gal.3:13):
Nay, more than this, you suppose that He was crucified as hostile to and cursed by God, which supposition is the product of your most irrational mind. (93)
Just as God commanded the sign to be made by the brazen serpent, and yet He is blameless; even so, though a curse lies in the law against persons who are crucified, yet no curse lies on the Christ of God, by whom all that have committed things worthy of a curse are saved. (94)
If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? (95)
For the statement in the law, ‘Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,’ [Deut.21:23] confirms our hope which depends on the crucified Christ, not because He who has been crucified is cursed by God, but because God foretold that which would be done by you all, and by those like to you, who do not know. … For you curse in your synagogues all those who are called Christians; and other nations effectively carry out the curse, putting to death those who simply confess themselves to be Christians … (96)
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, (Ante-Nicene Fathers, trans. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson)
He wrote: ‘No curse lies on the Christ of God.’ - That is, not in truth, according to God’s judgment. Justin explained that on the crucified Lord fell not the curse of God, but the curses of man - uttered by man against Him, as indeed upon His followers. Many had wrongly supposed that the crucifixion was proof that Jesus was cursed by the Almighty. To Justin, such a perception was the product of a ‘most irrational mind’. Here, Justin presents us with the prophetic portrayal of the suffering servant - viewed by man as accursed of God, as He hung upon the cross. To Justin, the true reality was that Jesus was prepared to suffer all the curses of mankind in His desire to save mankind from sin.
Do these views help us to understand Justin’s comments regarding the goat ‘for Azazel’ - the goat that was driven into the wilderness? - As a matter of fact, yes.
Justin wrote:
And the two goats which were ordered to be offered during the fast, of which one was sent away as the scape [azazel, goat of departure], and the other sacrificed, were similarly declarative of the two appearances of Christ: the first, in which the elders of your people, and the priests, having laid hands on Him and put Him to death, sent Him away as the scape; and His second appearance, because in the same place in Jerusalem you shall recognise Him whom you have dishonoured, and who was an offering for all sinners willing to repent, and keeping the fast which Isaiah speaks of, loosening the terms of the violent contracts, and keeping the other precepts, likewise enumerated by him, and which I have quoted, which those believing in Jesus do. And further, you are aware that the offering of the two goats, which were enjoined to be sacrificed at the fast, was not permitted to take place similarly anywhere else, but only in Jerusalem. (40)
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, (Ante-Nicene Fathers, trans. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson)
From this we see that Justin understood the ‘goat of departure’ as typifying an appearance of Christ - the priests laid hands upon Him and sent Him away to die. In doing so, they dishonoured and killed the One who made an offering of His life for all who repent of sins, as prophesied.
Therefore, we see that Justin wrote of two appearances of Christ – one by which He came unrecognized, dishonoured and cursed; the second by which He came known and understood by His disciples to be the One who offered His life for all sinners who truly repent and seek the righteousness of God. In this sense, the goat for Azazel prefigured what would happen to Christ during the first appearance. Jesus was rejected as an object of revulsion, just like the goat that was driven away to die in the wilderness.
Likewise, the body of the sin offering was also taken away ‘outside the camp’ - where it was completely burned and destroyed. However, its blood was sprinkled on and before the mercy seat within the Holy of Holies and afterwards sprinkled upon the altar to make atonement (Lev.16:27-28 & 15, 18, 19). This signifies that although the body of Jesus was to be taken and treated by man with contempt, His life would be received by the Father as a holy offering of atonement, acceptable and well-pleasing in His sight. (The ‘life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement,’ Lev.17:11, NKJ.)
To Justin, the two goats of the Day of Atonement spoke prophetically of our Lord’s rejection, suffering and death on the one hand, and of our Lord’s acceptance as a worthy offering sufficient for all on the other. The leaders, priests and people saw only the outward appearance. Nevertheless, the blood of the sin offering, sprinkled before God over the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy Place, amidst a cloud of fragrant incense, revealed the true inner reality of holiness and the Father’s acceptance of His Son: the Lamb of God ‘who takes away the sin of the world’ – though paradoxically the focus of mankind’s sins, curses and rejection.
The goat of departure became reviled as an object of sin, as indicated in The Epistle of Barnabus (c. A.D. 70-130):
‘Notice how the type of Jesus is revealed! “And all of you shall spit upon it and jab it, and tie scarlet wool around its head, and then let it be driven into the wilderness.”’ (The Apostolic Fathers, 7, 7-8: Lightfoot, Harmer, Holmes, pub. Apollos, 1989).
Although the source of this quotation used by Barnabus is unknown, the obvious revulsion shown towards the goat is echoed in a description found in the Mishna:
‘And they made a causeway for him because of the Babylonians, for they used to pull his hair and say to him, ‘Bear [away our sins] and go forth! Bear [away our sins] and go forth!”’ (Yoma, 6:4).
Laden with sin, the goat had come to personify sin and was thus treated with contempt by those who wanted to be free of sin.
In Isaiah, we read the Messianic verse: ‘I gave My back to those who struck Me, and My cheeks to those who plucked out the beard; I did not hide My face from shame and spitting’ (Is.50:6, NKJ). At once, we recognize the figure of Jesus - for whom the goat of departure (spat upon, jabbed at and hair pulled) may be seen as the type.
Jesus knew that He would be delivered up to authorities acting under satanic influence, as we can read: ‘I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming …’ (John 14:30, NKJ). ‘Him, being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified and put to death’ (Acts 2:23, NKJ). After His trial and scourging, He was led to a place of execution outside Jerusalem. The goat of departure (‘for Azazel’) was delivered up to Azazel in the wilderness, bearing the sins of the nation. Similarly, Jesus carried the sins of the people in His own body to the cross. He bore the sins, but not judiciously as a substitute, for He had been ‘deprived of justice’ and had been ‘taken away by lawless hands’ (Acts 8:33; 2:23). No, what happened signified that atonement for sins can be found through the blood of Christ, shed for us on the cross. His life, poured out in true holiness can be our covering. His righteousness is the garment of salvation for all who truly repent through faith in Jesus Christ.
Jesus was looked upon as one who typified sin, just as the goat for Azazel came to be seen. Nevertheless, in reality, He was the One who pronounced the sentence of God upon the father of sins. Although delivered up in body as an outcast of the nation Himself, Jesus delivered God’s verdict upon the ruler of this world - casting out the power of sin and Satan.
Did the goat for Azazel represent the devil? In the minds of the people, this goat came to symbolize sin. It was thought of as bearing all the sins for which Satan is ultimately guilty. As such, it was treated with hostility and was driven away as an object despised and hated. In truth, it symbolized Christ as the One who would be delivered up, bearing in His body the marks that symbolized mankind’s sin and rebellion against God, for which Satan is also culpable. Did the goat for Azazel represent an aspect of the deliverance to be received through Christ? Yes, this was the hidden truth. Jesus, though delivered up to Satan, maintained His righteousness and revealed His victory over sin and death. The devil lost and received God’s judgment. Through faith, all who look to Christ are truly set free from the power of sin and death. In Him is no condemnation.
Personal note: In the light of the above, I have to make a personal apology for my need to revise the position I expressed previously in my book. We have to admit to our mistakes and move on – this is what I am doing here. At the same time, I recognize that the above does not detract from the overall message of the book. In fact, quite the opposite, as Justin remarked: ‘No curse lies on the Christ of God.’ Though cursed, rejected and regarded as sin by man, He was received as the Lamb without blemish by God. His victory over sin was our victory also, if we are in Christ.
I moved to a remote area of Aberdeenshire - unfortunately, there was no phone, no satellite reception and, of course, no internet. Now that is fixed, I can post some of my recent writings. Sorry for the delay. I hope you find these postings helpful. I will try to write at least once per week - so come back now and again. I will be glad of your feedback. 
In this sermon - which is thought to be the earliest outside the New testament (c. A.D. 100) - the author makes an earnest appeal that his fellow Christians repent and obey the commands of their Saviour. Indeed, he stresses the need for obedience throughout his discourse, prompting them with warnings, such as: ‘Let us, therefore, not just call him Lord, for this will not save us. For he says, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will be saved, but only the one who does what is right “‘ (4.1,2).
Again, the writer exhorts: ‘For if we do the will of Christ, we will find rest, but if we do not, if we disobey his commandments, then nothing will save us from eternal punishment. …While we still have time to be healed, let us place ourselves in the hands of God the Physician, and pay him what is due. What is that? Sincere heartfelt repentance. …For the Lord also said, “My brothers are those who do the will of my Father “‘ (6.7; 9.7,8, 11).
He urges: ‘Let us wait, therefore, hour by hour for the kingdom of God in love and righteousness, since we do not know the day of God’s appearing’ (12.1).
The ‘kingdom of God’, according to the writer, is yet to come. However, in the same passage, he provides instruction, as from the Lord, as to how that kingdom might become evident now. ‘Therefore just as your body is visible, so also let your soul be evident in good works. …When you do these things, he says [the Lord], the kingdom of my Father will come.’ According to the writer, the kingdom of God should be visibly evident in our lives - not hidden, but openly seen through our obedience to the will of Christ.
This brings us back to the beginning. If we call Jesus ‘Lord’, it must be in Spirit and in truth. The writer exhorts us to strive as athletes in the contest of God, for we ‘are being trained in this present life in order that we may be crowned in the life to come’ (20.2).
The ‘Lord’s prayer’ comes to mind. It is not one to be uttered by mindless repetition. One should speak it from the heart with intensity of feeling:’Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as in heaven.’ Our words must reflect our lives - or else they are just empty and devoid of meaning. We must ’seek first the kingdom of God’ (Mat 6:33). This, indeed, should be our earnest desire and prayer - for without God, holiness is impossible. Amen.
Emboldened and showing no fear, Peter stood up and preached his first public sermon. This was the man who at the time of Christ’s arrest had fled and been too frightened to admit, when questioned, to even knowing Him. But, this was also the man who had later repented and affirmed his love, to whom Jesus said: ‘Feed My sheep’ (John 21:17). The miracle had caused a large crowd to gather and they were ready to listen, earnestly wanting to know what it meant. (Part One)
Some in the crowd began to question whether it was really a miracle and not the result of drinking too much wine. Knowing this, Peter began to speak.
First he countered these doubts by appealing to natural reason – it was only 9 O’clock in the morning – too early for wine! Then, Peter’s clarity of speech and sharpness of mind soon dispelled any uncertainties. A miracle of God had occurred; but for what good reason?
It had happened as predicted by the prophet Joel, Peter continued: ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy …’ (Joel 2:28-32, NKJ). What had occurred had been predicted in the holy writings. It had scriptural support. He spoke of the predicted signs to occur in heaven and on earth before the coming of ‘the day of the Lord’. - What had happened was a clear sign that ‘the last days’ were now upon them. The ‘day of the Lord’ referred to the time of God’s imminent judgement on the world. Lastly, at the end of this quotation, Peter stated the prophetic means of salvation: ‘And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved’ (Acts 2:21, NKJ).
This last statement provided the means of escape. To be saved: One had to call on the name of ‘the Lord’.
Without hesitation, Peter then went on to explain that Jesus is that Lord of the prophecy. The One whom they had crucified, God had made ‘both Lord and Christ’ (Acts 2:36). Jesus of Nazareth, he told them, was a man attested to by God through miracles, wonders and signs – as they also knew. He, by God’s foreknowledge, had been taken by ‘lawless hands’, crucified and put to death; but God had raised Him up – just as foretold by David: God would not allow His ‘Holy One to see corruption’ (Ps.16:8-11; Acts 2:25-28). Peter then explained that because David was still buried in his grave, he, being a prophet, had not spoken of himself, but of the Christ – that His soul would not be left with the dead, nor His flesh see decay (Acts 2:31).
Boldly, Peter asserted that Jesus had not only been raised from the dead, of which the disciples were witnesses, but also that He had been exalted to the right hand of God and had received the promise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This outpouring had inspired the miraculous words of praise that the crowd had heard in their own languages.
Confirmation was given from Scripture: ‘The Lord said unto my Lord. Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool’ (Ps.110:1). The One called Lord by David would ascend into the heavens and would sit at God’s right hand.
Then came the convicting truth: ‘God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ’ (Acts 2:36).
The sudden realization of all that had transpired had an immediate impact.
‘Men and brethren, what shall we do?’ came the response. - No more evidence was required. Those drawn to hear, convicted in the heart, wanted to know what had to be done. There was a genuine awareness that Peter had spoken God’s truth.
Peter replied: ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’ (Acts 2:38, NKJ). ‘For the promise is to you,’ he continued, ‘and to your children, and to all who are far off, as many as the Lord God will call’ (v39).
Peter provided a convincing message that led people to repent with faith in Christ. - So, what is required for salvation?
We need to accept Jesus as Lord and repent. When we do, we are given the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. It is as simple as that.
Notice, Peter went to great lengths to convince those listening that Jesus is the Lord of whom the prophets spoke. We need to know the name of the Lord – we need to know the One through whom is salvation. When witnessing before the Sanhedrin, Peter said: ‘Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4:12, NKJ).
Why did Peter also mention baptism? As an outward sign and witness of inner faith, baptism can signify the washing away of sins to live life anew. It can mark the transition from the kingdom of darkness to the Lordship and kingdom of Christ. It can signify death and resurrection as the old self dies and we are raised up in the righteousness of Jesus. Baptism allows us to demonstrate our faith in Christ, but we need only to repent in that faith to be saved.
An historic gathering of 1148 orthodox Anglican lay and clergy participants, including 291 bishops from around the world, met in Jerusalem to mobilize reform within the Anglican communion. The meeting ‘was called in a sense of urgency’ in the belief that ‘a false gospel’ has ‘paralysed the Anglican Communion’ requiring that ‘this crisis must be addressed’. The cause for this impasse is the perceived erosion of core Anglican beliefs and standards relating to the authority of Scripture and the ordinance of clergy within the Anglican communion. The recent blessings of homosexual unions in North America and the U.K., even between members of the clergy, has brought a reaction of consternation and alarm amongst conservative members of the Church. On 29th June, the bishops in Jerusalem issued a declaration, presenting their views and the tenets to which they uphold.
The agreement reached recognizes the authority of the Old and New Testaments: ‘to be respected in its plain and historical sense’, the 39 Articles of the Church for doctrine, and the 1662 prayer book as an authoritative standard. The movement intends to create its own province in North America, to set up theological colleges and its own Primates Council. It stays in communion with the Church of England but recognizes Canterbury only as an historic see. In particular, the following tenets clearly define the distinguishing boundary lines that set it apart:
8. We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.
13. We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.
What will be the outcome of this declaration? What impact will it have on the Church of England and on the Anglican Church in America?
I, for one, rejoice that a stand has been made to uphold the plain teachings of Scripture and the biblical standards for those appointed to positions of pastoral leadership in the Church. God bless their efforts!
Reference GAFCON
The following teaching on financial giving comes from the writings of Todd Bentley and Stephen Strader (the pastor of Ignited Church, Lakeland, and an associate of Todd Bentley). The full texts are given in the sidebar link. Here are some extracts:
Keys to grow in the Anointing by Todd Bentley
It’s a precious power that God allows to come on your life—a supernatural grace to enable you to do what you cannot do in the natural. The anointing is God’s power on your flesh, supernaturally enabling you to do the impossible and the supernatural.
Well, who wouldn’t want this - if this is of God?
A significant symbol of the anointing is oil, and certain servants of God possess it. The prophet Elisha was such a servant. So let’s learn more by studying 2 Kings 4:8–17 because this passage of scripture reveals how a prominent Shunammite woman found the oil [anointing/Elisha] and made a demand on “it” through her giving.
Emphasis mine …
She said she didn’t need anything! Yet, her generosity still made a demand on the anointing because when she honored the prophet she was due to receive the prophet’s reward! God attaches rewards to honor! (See Matthew 10:41.) What was the prophet’s reward? It was connected to Elisha’s question: “What is to be done for you?” That was the prophet’s reward. It was the blessing that the prophet would give—his prophecy: “About this time next year you shall embrace a son” (2 Kings 4:16). And she did!
Here, the Shunammite woman gave without thought for reward.
Now don’t miss this: To make a demand, you do that by giving. Now here’s one practical way for giving that I can share from my own experience: My wife and I make a demand by writing checks! We don’t just give to a ministry. We walk up to a man or woman of God and say, “This is for you.” We see that person’s anointing and realize, “Bam! I want it!”
Bam! Do you see the difference. By giving to a man of God, you will receive his anointing. If you want to receive, you have to give. (Checks or credit cards will do fine, thank you!). That is what Todd Bentley teaches.
Listen! We don’t, and we can’t, buy the anointing. But we can make a demand on the anointing, and that’s by giving. In other words, if you want to receive the anointing you need to give as you are led by God’s Spirit, and when you do you’ll start seeing the person/ministry that you give to, their mantle, coming on your life.
O.K., you can’t buy it - good! You just demand it, by giving - bad! Only an unruly child will demand of a father. The Lord said, ‘Ask, and you shall receive.’ He didn’t say: ‘Make a demand’! Only children who are disrespectful make demands. - ‘If you want to receive the anointing, you need to give.’ Todd Bentley said so, right here.
Now, Pastor Stephen Strader of Ignited Church, Lakeland provides:
Notes from Todd’s sermon … Squandering the Anointing!
Towards the close of the meeting, an illustration of giving to receive was used, as it became time for the offering:
These two young people demonstrated for all of us to SOW INTO REVIVAL. We have found a PRECIOUS TREASURE and BUY IT. Of course you can’t “buy” the revival… but you can make an offering that “costs you something” just like David did at the threshing floor.
We can’t receive until we GIVE. It’s more blessed to give than receive.
When Todd prayed for them – the Holy Spirit hit them so hard it knocked them AND the ushers back 10 feet and down on their faces!!!
TAKE IT FOR YOURSELF NOW!!!!
‘We can’t receive until we GIVE.’ - There, he said it again.
In the words of Todd Bentley, ‘Do you want it?’ - Consider wisely.
This post follows on from my previous posting: ‘Todd Bentley’s Conversations with the Apostle Paul et al’.
Todd Bentley is presently causing a lot of interest amongst Christians around the world. Are the alleged healings and miracles genuine? From what I have seen, in spite of the claims, I remain unconvinced. Nevertheless, many firmly believe that what is happening at his services is proof that God is working through him.
Todd Bentley – Looking at the Fruits
If we focus on the fruits of Todd Bentley’s ministry, what do we see? For some, it is miracles, signs and wonders. These things, they say, give support to the veracity of his revelations and words of knowledge. After all, didn’t Jesus say; ‘If you do not believe Me, believe the works’ (Jn.10:38, NKJ). The opponents of Christ could not argue against the works – none were false or imagined. To all who believe the scriptures, the Gospels testify to this fact.
Can the same be said of the alleged miracles of healing we see in the services of Todd Bentley? When you witness a person coming in a wheelchair, being ministered to and then leaving in a wheelchair, you are inclined to doubt. An obvious stroke victim, suffering from the affects of damage to the brain is brought up on stage, Todd claims a healing of paralysis is taking place – does the lady leap up out of the chair and shout hallelujah. - Not at all. This pitiful woman, barely able to talk and hardly able to raise her legs, continues to exhibit the same effects of her stroke as before. Yet, it is claimed a healing has begun – not all healings happen straight away, we are told. – Even so, I very much doubt we shall see this woman back to confirm the alleged healing. (See video)
‘Yes, that may have been doubtful, but look at the testimonies of others claiming to be healed,’ supporters might say. No. Let’s stay with the doubts, shall we. Incidents such as that recalled above give cause for concern. What else happens during his services? Do we see ‘all things done decently and in order’ (1 Cor.14:40) – providing a good witness to those without? - No, not at all! Rather, we witness disorder and commotion. Some are seen to exhibit violent shaking, twitching and jerking movements of body or head – especially when touched by the minister. Others break out into loud bouts of laughter. – Not that laughter is a bad thing – normally, but when the laughter just goes on and on and on, then we start to realize that something is wrong. It becomes alarming. Yet, this behaviour – the shaking, twitching, uncontrolled laughter - is attributed to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Such confusion appears ugly and insane. To the outsider, it is yet another example of why Christianity should be despised and rejected. For every one person attracted to such meetings, how many from Christ will they drive further away? - This is not the product of good fruit.
Now, what is Todd Bentley teaching? Is there any cause for concern here? – Plenty. Let’s take his teaching on angels. He wrote of one visitation from ‘an angel called Emma’:
‘During this visitation the pastor’s wife (it was an AOG church) got totally whacked by the Holy Ghost- she began running around barking like a dog or squawking like a chicken as a powerful prophetic spirit came on her’ (Angelic Hosts: Emma, Angel of the Prophetic, 2003).
Well, do we need to ask if ‘barking madness’ is a fruit of the Holy Spirit? How about ‘running around …squawking like a chicken’? So much for Todd Bentley’s spiritual powers of discernment! This example should serve as a warning. Not only this, but by attributing such crazy behaviour to the Holy Spirit, he blasphemes. (This is very serious, although I hope a sin to be forgiven as one of ignorance.)
What else does he teach? He alleges to have had the blessing of Jesus and Paul, to whom he claims to have spoken. The following comment is attributed by him to Paul:
‘Paul told me that essentially there would be no gospel and there would be no Israel without Abraham. He said too, that there would be no gospel without David because there would be no divine Son of David (Jesus Christ) in order for the kingdom and His throne to be built upon the throne of David (Luke 1:31, 32). Jesus came through the lineage of David and with Jesus’ coming, the gospel was released’ (Encounter with Heaven, 05/07/07).
Of course Jesus would not have been called the Son of David if David had not lived, nor would prophecies mention the establishment of David’s throne without David. David came first - the prophecies later. The prophecies do not establish the need for David, but Christ.
However, ‘Paul’ said that there would be no Son of David - no Jesus Christ - no gospel without Abraham and David? The Lamb who was ’slain before the foundation of the earth’ needed Abraham and David for the gospel? Our salvation depended on these men? Somehow, I can’t imagine Paul ever making such a remark – neither on earth, nor in heaven!
What is happening through Todd Bentley is deceptive. On the surface, he appears to be serving God, but in reality his ministry projects a false image of the Church and true Christianity. The Church already has a poor image in the minds of many, who consider it in the light of recent scandals involving ‘gay clergy’ and child abuse cases. American TV evangelists are viewed with both cynicism and scepticism – and not without due reason. The emphasis placed upon a prosperity gospel is akin to preaching simony – you can have ‘all this’ is you believe and become a co-worker (a euphemism for a financial donor). The Church is often viewed as either out-of date or out-of-touch with reality. In the case of Todd Bentley and his followers, it is the latter.
The Church does need a fresh outpouring of the heavenly gifts – but are we ready? The Lord says, ‘Whom shall I send?’ (Is.6:8) – Are we capable of making ourselves available?
Some videos for reference:
‘Todd Bentley ministering’ Laughter and commotion at Dudley
Todd Bentley and violence in meetings Todd Bentley ministers to stroke victim
