my weekend reading: sacrificial atonement and the church-bride

[Madhu]

I borrowed a few short tracts from our local pastors library. One is
"God's way of Peace" by Horatius Bonar probably published around 1861,
avaliable on the web at https://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/bonar/bonar.html,
I think this is standard Reform theology: establishing that peace is
found by the completely fallen man only through the receiving the
unmotivated grace of God, through Jesus' sacrificial work at the cross.
However I hit blocks at chapters 4 and 5. In 4 he considers the question
of whether the grace is righteous.

"The right kind of pardon comes not from love alone, but from
law; not from good nature, but from righteousness; not from
indifference to sin, but from holiness [page 42] [...], work of
christ] It shews salvation as an act of righteousness; nay, one
of the highest acts of righteousness that a righteous God can
do. It shews pardon not only as the deed of a righteous God, but
as the thing which shews how righteous he is, and how he hates
and condemns the very sin that he is pardoning [page 45] [...],

"These expressions speak of something more than love. Love is in
each of them; the deep, true, real love of God; but also justice
and holiness; inflexible and inexorable adherence to law. They
have no meaning apart from law; law as the foundation, pillar,
keystone of the universe. But their connection with law is also
their connection with love. For as t was law, in its
unchangeable perfection, that constituted the necessity for the
Surety's death,[...]"

God's righteousness and justness is established by his adherence to the
law in condemning christ at the cross.

Is the flaw in this logic clear to others as it is to me? The law is
later shown to be a fraud, (it cannot be kept, implementing it in
practice is an exercise in corruption and the substrate for satans
works, the expiatory blood of innocent beasts is shown not to forgive
sin) and yet the validity of jesus work is supposed to established on
it, which is essentially a constructed "sin fraud", which has to be
tossed out to be valid after jesus.

It has been my contention that Jesus work cannot rest on the law, the
law is flawed and it can point to Jesus' work, but it cannot be used to
show the Justness of god.

My objection in Chapter 6 is similar..

"The heathen altars have been red with blood; and to this day
they are the same. But these worshippers know not what they
mean, in bringing that blood. It is associated only with
vengeance in their minds; and they shed it, to appease the
vengeance of their gods. But this is no recognition, either of
the love or the righteousness of God. "Fury is not in him;"
whereas their altars speak only of fury. The blood which they
bring is a denial both of righteousness and grace.

"But look at Israel's altars. There is blood; and they who
bring it know the God to whom they come. They bring it in
acknowledgment of their own guilt, but also of his pardoning
love. They say, "I deserve death; but let this death stand for
mine; and let the love which otherwise" [page61]

And then goes on to reinforce the importance of the shedding of blood,
and God's testimonies on blood.

Don't others find this argument self defeating? i.e. basing the
acceptance by God on a false model. Would it not be better to
acknowledge that God wanted to teach the lesson of grace to Israel by
giving sacrifice to Israel, on the heathen model, only so Israel would
come to recognize that it is *false*, it does *not* work, and Israel has
to look to Jesus the Messiah the deliverance rather than what the law
promised them through the prescribed sacrifice? That the sacrifice
narrative and blood only work to satans financial gains and eventually
only promote unrighteousness and satans work in the world, because it is
fundamentally false, and the profits are only based on the validity of
the heathen model?

Instead this reformed theology only tries reinforces the validity the
proven false model, and thereby contributes to satans continuing work in
the world, on the same pattern as the corruption in the temple that
jesus tried to stem, and using jesus in the same way.

"Waiting on God" by Andrew Murray, another Scot, I had no issues with.
I started reading a third book on "Destined for the Throne", which makes
the church out to be the bride of christ and co-ruler with christ.
Unfortunately I find I can substitute, say "international bankers" for
"church" and the all the promises and expectations of dominion and
kingdom are presently fulfilled by the elect group.

[The last a book on the the song of songs by watchman nee, which is
probably similar, but given Songs is not canonical, so I haven't gotten
around to it yet]

[Kendall K. Down]

Post by Madhu
God's righteousness and justness is established by his adherence to the
law in condemning christ at the cross.

I don't see any problem with this. If God's law could be either changed
or abolished, then there would have been no need for Jesus to die. God
could simply have abolished the law and then there would be no sinners
(sin is transgression of the law - KJV).

Post by Madhu
Is the flaw in this logic clear to others as it is to me? The law is
later shown to be a fraud, (it cannot be kept, implementing it in
practice is an exercise in corruption and the substrate for satans
works, the expiatory blood of innocent beasts is shown not to forgive
sin) and yet the validity of jesus work is supposed to established on
it, which is essentially a constructed "sin fraud", which has to be
tossed out to be valid after jesus.

It is not the law which is at fault, however; the problem lies in us
("for finding fault with *them*"). We cannot keep the law and therefore
any attempt at being saved by law-keeping is doomed to failure - but the
law itself is "holy, just and good".

Post by Madhu
It has been my contention that Jesus work cannot rest on the law, the
law is flawed and it can point to Jesus' work, but it cannot be used to
show the Justness of god.

On the contrary, the stipulations of the law are so eminently wise and
sensible and just that they do indeed show God's justness.

Post by Madhu
"The heathen altars have been red with blood; and to this day
they are the same. But these worshippers know not what they
mean, in bringing that blood. It is associated only with
vengeance in their minds; and they shed it, to appease the
vengeance of their gods. But this is no recognition, either of
the love or the righteousness of God. "Fury is not in him;"
whereas their altars speak only of fury. The blood which they
bring is a denial both of righteousness and grace.

So far so good. Take, for example, Kali-worship. The sacrifices offered
in the Kali temple in Calcutta are to propitiate the goddess of
destruction and keep her from attacking the sacrificer.

Post by Madhu
"But look at Israel's altars. There is blood; and they who
bring it know the God to whom they come. They bring it in
acknowledgment of their own guilt, but also of his pardoning
love. They say, "I deserve death; but let this death stand for
mine; and let the love which otherwise" [page61]

As Christians we can make that argument, but I am not convinced that the
ancient Jews would have understood things like that. Certainly there was
a cleansing element and a removal of guilt, but a major part of the
sacrificial system was that the ancient Jews were an agricultural
economy. Animals were wealth and sacrificing one when you sinned was the
equivalent of being fined for your offence.

Post by Madhu
Don't others find this argument self defeating? i.e. basing the
acceptance by God on a false model. Would it not be better to
acknowledge that God wanted to teach the lesson of grace to Israel by
giving sacrifice to Israel, on the heathen model, only so Israel would
come to recognize that it is *false*, it does *not* work, and Israel has
to look to Jesus the Messiah the deliverance rather than what the law
promised them through the prescribed sacrifice?

I don't see that at all.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Madhu]

Post by Kendall K. Down

Post by Madhu
"But look at Israel's altars. There is blood; and they who
bring it know the God to whom they come. They bring it in
acknowledgment of their own guilt, but also of his pardoning
love. They say, "I deserve death; but let this death stand for
mine; and let the love which otherwise" [page61]

As Christians we can make that argument, but I am not convinced that
the ancient Jews would have understood things like that.

There is a commentary on Leviticus by Andrew Bonar (youngest brother of
the above author) which is full of this sort of exegesis. It looks like
Scottish reform is tied to scottish banking. much like the Evangelicals
end up being providing logistical support and covering the defects of
the otherwise unbiblical principles of modern banking, which then
implicitly becomes part of "God's plan".

Post by Kendall K. Down
Certainly
there was a cleansing element and a removal of guilt, but a major part
of the sacrificial system was that the ancient Jews were an
agricultural economy. Animals were wealth and sacrificing one when you
sinned was the equivalent of being fined for your offence.

[Kendall K. Down]

Post by Madhu
There is a commentary on Leviticus by Andrew Bonar (youngest brother of
the above author) which is full of this sort of exegesis.

I don't know whether my comments are "exegesis". They simply highlight
the fact that if cattle are wealth, then killing one of your animals
diminishes your wealth.

If I drive faster than the speed limit or park in the wrong place in
modern Britain, my wealth is diminished by £60-100. If I break one of
the Ten Commandments in ancient Israel, my wealth is diminished by one
female goat.

I fail to see any link with the Scottish banking system.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Madhu]

Post by Kendall K. Down

Post by Madhu
There is a commentary on Leviticus by Andrew Bonar (youngest brother
of the above author) which is full of this sort of exegesis.

I don't know whether my comments are "exegesis".

I didn't mean your exegesis, I meant Horatius' (in the piece I quoted,
you can compare the piece I posted with this
https:///www.theologynetwork.org/Media/PDF/Andrew_Bonar-Leviticus_Commentary.pdf
)

Post by Kendall K. Down
They simply highlight
the fact that if cattle are wealth, then killing one of your animals
diminishes your wealth.
If I drive faster than the speed limit or park in the wrong place in
modern Britain, my wealth is diminished by £60-100. If I break one of
the Ten Commandments in ancient Israel, my wealth is diminished by one
female goat.

That's fine. In practice what do you see? In your own words the speed
traps (at 20mp zones) are money making-cons. Here the money is
accounted for and ends up in banks, and can be lent upon. East of the
suez a cop at a bar might go out and diminish the wealth of sinners to
get money to get his other drink. I get the banks benefit from those
transactions too.

The law is a blessing but mainly to those appointed to uphold it but it
is through perversion, and for those those who break it and get away
with it. sure Imran Khan or Trump may have sinned and deserve the
justice meted out to them, but the benefits are from the selective
application of the law. This is was and is satans economy, unchanged
from the action at the cross. I suggested upthread it is unchanged
because same mistakes are being made now as before in the interpretion
of the law and sacrifice and atonement.

To quote myself here from my outbox, "In practice the only benefit of
the law is for those who break it and get away with it. (In the
relationship with God those whose sins are forgiven through blood
sacrifice "get away with it", are blessed.")

Post by Kendall K. Down
I fail to see any link with the Scottish banking system.

Nothing specific to scots. This theology was developed in the
prosperous environment of banking, this is fresh after the reformation,
when the power and charge of establishing the antichrist was taken away
from the roman catholic church and, i believe, was given to
international banking instead, from what gas been borne out. The
workable theology would clear would let those involved enjoy the
prospertity that comes from banking actions with a clear conscience.

[Kendall K. Down]

Post by Madhu
The law is a blessing but mainly to those appointed to uphold it but it
is through perversion, and for those those who break it and get away
with it. sure Imran Khan or Trump may have sinned and deserve the
justice meted out to them, but the benefits are from the selective
application of the law. This is was and is satans economy, unchanged
from the action at the cross.

I don't deny that law enforcement is very lacking in many places.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down