Sharpton Jesus was a refuge

I woke up this morning and saw that Fox News had a tease about something Al Sharpton Tweeted. His tweet was pretty innocuous:
Reverend Al Sharpton ✔ @TheRevAl

Before you head to church today, remember to thank God for his son, Jesus a refugee who fled to Egypt.

5:51 AM - 29 Jan 2017

To this the Fox News reported this follow up tweet:
MC ‏@mcolange

@TheRevAl @Wargs77 @jccolange @StephenKing umm, his parents weren't refugees. They traveled to pay their taxes. Please Al

Is this a case of Alternative Facts? 

Well actually they are both right as the New Testament is not in agreement about this. The book of Matthew has Jesus' family fleeing to Egypt while the book of Luke has Jesus and family returning to Nazareth. I cover this in more depth in my article God with us, Allegory and Matthew.The fact then is that Luke says they went back to Nazareth and Matthew says they went to Egypt. The reality is that both can't be correct so there is only one actual fact but it requires interpretation to arrive at that fact. Interpretations can vary however

So Al Sharpton is right and those who say Jesus was not a refugee are right. Funny how that works isn't it! Here is a portion of the article God with us, Allegory and Matthew:

Maybe the lesson only means it is the Word of God where it records things about Jesus? In which case the book of Matthew gives an account that is contrary to the account of the book of Luke. Luke says Jesus’ family left for Nazareth after the ritual in Jerusalem (Luke2:39) this does not allow much wiggle room to have them go to Egypt after the Magi’s visit. The NIV study Bible notes says that the Magi probably arrived months after the Birth, but as per Luke the family would no longer be in Bethlehem. Luke has nothing about Jesus’ family going to Egypt in fact it says they went to Nazareth from Jerusalem. Luke has nothing of threatened children, the book uses none of the out of context verses which the book of Matthew does.

“where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." …"A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." (Matt 2:15,18 NIV)

Here is where higher criticism comes in, what is the author trying to say and what are the techniques he uses to get his message across. We see that in the book of Matthew, at least in the first several chapters, an intentional literary device employed. The book tries to recapitulate the events of ancient Israel in the life of Jesus Christ. But there also seems to be a recurring theme if we look a little deeper at the verses that the author of Matthew uses. In the following verses the section used in Matthew are highlighted in bold.

Why Did Jesus Have To Die

Why Did Jesus Have To Die


Time to talk about Atonement Theory


By Ron Corson



In a Time magazine article entitled Why Did Jesus Die? [April 12, 2004] The author quotes a conversation on the subject by a men’s group, the leader of the group concludes: “It physically had to happen, I’m not sure I would have said that before I saw the movie [Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ]. But now it’s much clearer to me. I can’t say why he had to suffer the way he did. But Christ had to die.” In theological terms we are have entered the area known as soteriology, which is the theology which deals with salvation as effected by Jesus Christ. In Bible terms we are dealing with Atonement which means the reconciliation between God and man. As the Time article noted The Atonement is the centerpiece of Christianity. Which theory a person holds defines their Christian views as well as their particular view of God.



There have been several Atonement Theories throughout church history all with their own catchy Theological names. They range from the simple to complex. Beginning with the Apostolic Fathers we see the simplest theory which is known as the Moral Influence Theory.  Christ imparted to us: new Knowledge, Fresh life, Immortality. Clement states: Through Him God has called us from darkness to light from ignorance to knowledge of the glory of His name. Clement further says that Christ endured it all on account of us and that His sufferings should bring us to repentance. Hemas adds that Christ reveals to us the true God. Barnabas notes that He came to abolish death and to demonstrate resurrection from the dead. Peter Abelard who is most notable for his promotion of this theory one thousand years later said, “Love answers love’s appeal”.  The Moral Influence theory is directed at mankind, to draw them back to God through the knowledge revealed by Christ, God is love He offers forgiveness and reconciliation and life.



A little later the Theory of Recapitulation was put forward by Irenaeus.  This theory states that just as Adam contained in himself all his descendants so Christ recapitulated in Himself all the dispersed peoples dating back to Adam, the whole race of mankind, along with Adam himself. His conclusion is that humanity which was seminally present in Adam has been given the opportunity of making a new start in Christ, the second Adam, through incorporation in his mystical body. The original Adam by disobedience introduced the principle of sin and death, but Christ by His obedience has reintroduced the principle of life and immortality. Because He is identified with the human race at every phase of it existence, He restores fellowship with God to all. To Irenaeus it is obedience that God requires, and in order to exhibit such obedience, Christ had to live His life through all its stages, including death.



Later a more fanciful theory gained several centuries of acceptance. The Ransom theory with elements taken from Origin interprets the death of Christ as a Ransom paid by God to Satan in order to secure the redemption of humanity, which has been brought under his dominion by sin. Different writers had various options on this theory. Some admitted the possession of his captives, and the death of Jesus is interpreted as a ransom due to the devil on grounds of justice. Others denied the devil has a right to sinners, but saw God as too gracious to take what was His by force. Still others felt that man’s deliverance was secured by deception on God’s part. Satan being deceived by the humble appearance of the Redeemer supposing that he had to do with a mere man. Finding too late that the Deity whose presence he had not perceived escaped his clutches through the Resurrection. Some of the adherents to this view include Augustine, Gregory the Great, Gregory of Nyssa. While this theory has been forgotten by most Christians, remnants are still seen in many Christian Churches today. An example of this is seen in this statement by the late professor  Arnold V. Wallenkampf :“Satan had challenged Jesus' resurrection of Moses on Mount Nebo (see Jude 9); and legally Satan had a point. Moses had been a sinner, and as such he belonged to Satan.”



Around 1100 C.E. a more complex theory of the Atonement gained precedence. The Satisfaction theory was first produced in a clear coherent manner by Anselm, in his treatise, Cur Deus Homo, ( Why a Godman?) Anselm finds no reason in justice why God was under any obligation to Satan. Christ’s Atonement concerns God not the devil. Man by his sin has violated the honor of God and defiled His handiwork. It is not consistent with the Divine self-respect that He should permit His purpose to be thwarted. Yet this purpose requires the fulfillment by man of the perfect law of God. For this transgression, repentance is no remedy, since penitence, however sincere, cannot atone for the guilt of past sin. Nor can any finite substitute, whether man or angel make reparation. Sin being against the infinite God, is infinitely guilty, and can be atoned for only by an infinite satisfaction. Thus either man must be punished and God’s purpose fail or man must make an infinite satisfaction, which is impossible. The only escape is that someone be found who can unite in his own person the attributes both of humanity and of infinity. This is brought about by the incarnation of Christ. In Christ we have one who is very man, and can therefore make satisfaction to God on behalf of humanity, but who is at the same time very God, and whose person therefore gives infinite worth to the satisfaction which He makes. Christ death voluntarily given when it is not due since He was without sin, is the infinite satisfaction which secures the salvation of man.



From this, the majority of Christian Churches both Roman Catholic and Protestants have moved to the Theory put forth in the 1500’s known as the Substitution Theory (Penal Theory). With the exception of the Eastern Orthodox Church which really does not focus on any particular Atonement theory instead focusing upon Jesus’ triumph over death and way made to join Him.



The Substitutionary view held many of Anselm’s presuppositions regarding Christ’s Atonement. However it was modified in one very substantial way. The central position of the Atonement was interpreted not as satisfaction, but as punishment, and hence given a substitutionary significance. The infinite guilt of man’s sin which has so utterly alienated mankind from the Kingdom of Heaven that none but a person reaching to God can be the medium of restoring peace. Such an efficient mediator is found in Christ alone. Through whose atoning death the price of man’s forgiveness is paid and a way of salvation made open. John Calvin considers the Atonement not as a meritorious satisfaction accepted as a substitute for punishment, but as the vicarious endurance by Christ of that punishment itself. Calvin denies that God was ever hostile to Christ or angry with Him, yet in His Divine providence He suffered His Son to go through the experience of those against whom God is thus hostile. In His own consciousness, Christ bore the weight of the Divine anger, was smitten and afflicted, and experienced all the signs of an angry and avenging God.



The Penal Theory was severally criticized by the Socinians, who attacked the entire concept of substitutionary punishment. They held that punishment and forgiveness are inconsistent ideas. If a man is punished he cannot be forgiven, and vice versa. Under the theory of distributive justice, punishment, being a matter of the relation between individual guilt and its consequences, is strictly untransferable. The Socinians held to the Moral Influence Theory as mentioned by the Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists of the second century church.



In response to the Socinians Hugo Grotius wrote a work entitled The Satisfaction of Christ. Grotius was writing in defense of the Penal/Substitution Theory, however he, perhaps unknowingly modified the theory. In this view God does not deal with men as a judge but as a governor, who unlike a judge may temper justice with mercy, but the motives which lead him so to be temperate are never arbitrary. Thus Christ’s death is a substitute for punishment, a suffering inflicted by God and voluntarily accepted by Christ, which works upon men by moral influence in order to conserve the ends of righteousness. Such suffering on Christ’s part is necessary, since forgiveness on the basis of repentance alone might be misinterpreted by men and lead to grave carelessness. Among Arminians it has practically supplanted the older Penal Theory.



Sources:


Early Christian Doctrines J.N.D. Kelly Harper & Row, Pub. New York 1960 pp. 163-183, 375-395


Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Vol. 5 pp. 640-650


The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia pp. 349-356

One of the myths about forgiveness

A friend brought to my attention the following article from the religion section of the Huff Post. First I would say that if you get your religion ideas from the Huff Post you are probably in trouble. But since it gets wide readership I thought I would reply to one of the sections of the article. The article is entitled 5 Myths About Forgiveness in the Bible by Maria Mayo M. Div., M.A.

In my response to my friend I think I disagreed with all but one of her 5 points. The one I agreed with was point 5 Forgiveness sets you free. Which I don't even think is a widely held view by anyone, but I would like to focus on her third point for this article: 

          3. Jesus forgives his attackers from the cross.

Luke's depiction of Jesus on the cross is often cited as the quintessential example of unconditional forgiveness. As he is being crucified, Jesus cries out, "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34). Readers often take this to mean that Jesus forgives those who are attacking him. However, a closer look at the syntax reveals that Jesus is not, in fact, forgiving his attackers; rather, he is praying that God might do so.
It is possible that the lack of repentance from his attackers prevents Jesus from forgiving the men directly, since he has taught his followers that repentance is a requirement for forgiveness. Also, earlier in the Gospel of Luke Jesus instructs his disciples to "pray for those who abuse you" (Luke 6:38). While his prayer from the cross is a perfect model of this teaching, it is not an explicit act of forgiveness.

This is troubling because of its confusion about who Jesus Christ is. Most readers of the New Testament have recognized that Jesus not only claimed to be the son of God, but that He was One with God, such as:

John 8:58-59 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. (KJV)

This equality with God was it seems a heavy emphasis in the Gospel of John. He began the gospel with:

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. n him was life, and that life was the light of men. (NIV)

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (NIV)

It was of course not just the writer of John that felt this way the author of the book of Matthew seems to be of the same opinion with his use of Emmanuel, God with us. There are very clearly strong biblical reasons why Jesus is considered to be God, it is why the early church derived the doctrine of the Trinity as a way to explain God who was in fact at multiple places at one time. It seems people have no problem with the idea of God as omnipresent but they get a little bogged down when physicality is involved. As if such a thing as a human body should stop God from being God. You can imagine the confusion if Jesus had said I am God right here and now pray to me. The physicality of God would become the issue and they would be even more confused when the physical God was no longer around, where did He go and where was He before He was born on earth. There are ideas that take time to develop and that explains why Jesus prayed to God the Father, as an example of how man should pray to God, but not in a way that was for Himself or separate from God. Even when troubled by impending horrors the concern for His physical comfort took second place to the will of God which was also His will. Not only did Jesus say to pray for those who abuse you but to forgive them.

Matt 6:14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. (NIV)

The book of Matthew also points out that Jesus demonstrated His ability to forgive sins:

Matt 9:6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." (NIV)

What Jesus did on the cross was far more then to ask God to forgive sins but to demonstrate that through love sins were forgiven even to the extent as Peter preached:

Acts 3:13-20

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see."Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you-- even Jesus. (NIV)

The forgiveness was there offered for all, but forgiveness is of little value if you still are an enemy of God, if you don't accept the forgiveness you remain in a state of animosity of your part. There is no renewal, no refreshing just our anger and rebellion, no healing. At the cross Jesus is not asking God to forgive, it is God showing us what forgiveness is like, that love reaches out even to those who reject God even while they reject God with cruelty and hatred. God was reaching out, He is still reaching out.

Did Jesus Die the "Second Death"

Recently several Adventist discussion forums have started threads asking the question "Did Jesus die the second death". They were all started by the same individual and it is somewhat interesting to see how the people on the different forums answered the question. What is also interesting is the total lack of Biblical material to make the assertion that Jesus died the second death. The following is taken from my article What is wrong with the Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement.

Did Jesus Die The Second Death

While it is a common concept in the substitutional theory of the atonement that Christ paid our debt or our penalty for sin, the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) church has carried the idea even farther. As one of the SDA quarterlies recently said: "At the cross, Jesus died the "second death" (Rev. 20:14; 21:8)..." (Nov 26 2001 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide).

Prominent in the SDA church is the concept that Christ died the second death, and God poured out His wrath on Christ on the cross. The book Seventh-day Adventists Believe..A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (The Ministerial Association Review and Herald Pub. Ass. 1988) writes as follows on page 111:

"Christ's self-sacrificing is pleasing to God because this sacrificial offering took away the barrier between God and sinful man in that Christ fully bore God's wrath on man's sin. Through Christ, God's wrath is not turned into love but is turned away from man and borne by Himself." (the book is quoting from Hans K. LaRondell, Christ Our Salvation p. 26,27)

However there is little Biblical basis for such a statement. Certainly, the Bible does not ever speak of God's wrath on Christ. It is most often used of those who reject God, such as:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, (Rom 1:18)

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." (John 3:36)

LaRondell's conclusions seem to be based on Romans 3:25 and Ephesians 5:2

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- (Romans 3:25)

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (Ephesians 5:2)

None of which warrant such a conclusion as Christ bore God's wrath. The life, death, and resurrection is the "blood" which reaches to us, to offer us the gift of forgiveness and life. Blood in both the Old Testament and in all the other ancient religions was a symbol of life. It is the life which Christ proved was in Him that proved death had no hold on Him and therefore us, if we accept the gift of life He offers. Christ always lives and always will (John 1:1) He is the Way, Truth and the Life, it is not His death that saves us it is His life and power over all things that save us.

There is another method often used in the SDA church to assert that Christ suffered under the wrath of God. It is developed something like this:

God is revealing His wrath upon the wicked; He gives them over to their sinful desires. Likewise on the cross Christ was delivered over for our sins. Thus God separated Himself from Christ on the cross and Christ died the "second death".

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, (Rom 1:18)

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. (Rom 1:24)

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. (Rom 4:25)

Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification. (KJV)

Amazingly enough the point of tying wrath and Christ is developed from a frequently used New Testament word variously translated as; "betray, bring forth, cast, commit, deliver (up), give (over, up), hazard, put in prison, recommend. (3860 paradidomi (par-ad-id'-o-mee)". When a word is used 130 times in the New Testament it becomes clear that someone is playing fast and loose with the principles of Biblical interpretation. How was Jesus given up is a legitimate question, and it should well be considered:

He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all-- how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? (Rom 8:32)

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. (John 18:36 KJV)

Paul in Romans uses the idea of Christ given up or delivered in much the same way as it is used in Acts. In Acts as well as the text above in John, it is the idea that God allowed sinful men to lay hands on Christ and do what sin does, kill. In fact the ultimate act of sin, is the rebellion against God to the point where man kills his own creator. In the Book of Acts we are told who killed Christ, and never once is it said that He died by God. Men, human beings were the cause of the death of Christ. It is clear that God knew it would happen and God intended to use mans evil for God's ultimate purpose.

This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. (Acts 2:23)

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.(Acts 3:13)

The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead-- whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.(Acts 5:30)

Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him-- (Acts 7:52)

"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, (Acts10:39)

It is not only in Acts that it is plain as to who killed Christ, Paul and the Gospel writers wrote:

For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men (1 Thes 2:14-15)

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. (Matt 16:21)

The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him;(Luke 24:20)

There is indeed no shortage of evidence as to who and how Christ was killed. With such strong evidence as that given above it is peculiar that people continue to make such comments as "Christ died of a broken heart" presuming that it was from the separation of His Father that Christ died. Ignoring the plain facts that Christ had been beaten, and nailed to a cross to die. As if the Roman method of execution was not efficient at killing. (Matt 27:26 The NIV Study Bible notes "Roman floggings were so brutal that sometimes the victim died before crucifixion." See What is wrong with the Substitutionary Theory Appendix 5)

How is it that contrary to the witnesses of the Crucifixion that people assert that, "At the cross, Jesus died the "second death". Unless one has a preconceived concept about Christ death it is fairly obvious that He did not suffer the second death. The verses which mention the second death involves complete destruction from which there is no return. To assert such an idea is to ignore the many Biblical texts which set forth fire as the ultimate destroyer. A concept still easily seen today, few methods of destruction leave so little behind as fire. In most cases fire leaves nothing but ashes, often nothing is left to even indicate what was destroyed.

Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.(Rev 20:14)

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-- their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." (Rev 21:8)

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death. (Rev 2:11)

Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. (Rev 20:6)

No place in the Bible does it tell us that Christ suffered the second death, however Jesus certainly mentions what will be latter known as the second death when He says:

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matt 10:28)

Those who hold to the idea that Christ died the second death usually fall back upon a single incident in scripture to indicate that Christ was separated from the Father causing Christ's death.

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"-- which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34)

They usually ignore that Jesus is quoting the first words of the Psalmist messianic prophecy about how the messiah would be rejected and abused by evil men.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? (Psalm 22:1)

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?", does not necessarily indicate the separation of divinity from divinity, the human suffering which Jesus went through is certainly adequate to explain the feeling of being forsaken. To be at the mercy of sinful man is often a crisis. The Psalmist complains of such feeling several times. Christ, quoting the first words of Psalm 22 give important relevance to Christ's position as the one who suffers at the hands of evil men, yet who will ultimately triumph. (See Appendix 4) The more prevalent Christian idea that there was a short, momentary separation is certainly less objectionable than a second death concept.

On the cross Jesus Christ revealed the true nature of God. Divinity did not leave Christ on the cross, God's love was revealed to mankind. Even while being tormented by evil men, Christ forgave them, showing as He had earlier that He was God Himself by His ability to forgive sin (Luke 23:34). Ultimately it was to God that Christ commits His spirit, which is hardly the act of someone suffering under the "second death", or someone suffering the wrath of God.

Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46)

God has through the life death and resurrection of Christ ransomed us from our own headlong rush toward death. Not with the blood of sheep and calves, but with the life which is in God. A life laid down by Christ voluntarily subjected to the torture and murder by people in rebellion against God. To show us the love of God, the depths that He would go to show us His love. To reveal the true nature of evil which hurts and kills, so much so that men would kill their own creator. Finally to show us that God is willing and able to forgive us our sins and raise us up to life immortal. Christ who willingly laid down His life also took it back up again (John 10:17-18). That is the reconciliation of God, the lengths to call people back to trust in God. The mercy of love which is freely forgives, the justice which is the return to harmony with our Creator.