tehological insight

[dreamer_easy]

I am so pleased with the typo in the Subject line that I'm keeping it. Anyway, it suddenly occurred to me that the Crucifixion occurred because God promised not to repeat the Flood. Am I right?

Comments

[infinitarian.livejournal.com]

Not wishing to start a theological flame war on Kate's LJ, but theories of the Atonement are diverse and contentious. There's a significant school of thought that sees the Incarnation of God as a human being, and the return of that human being to God after death, as bridging the gap between the two and making them "at one".

For that, any death would do -- and, since being mortal is a part of being human, Jesus' death in some form was inevitable. (I heard a very interesting talk which pointed out that, if he truly partook of the human condition of those around him, he stood a very substantial chance of being miscarried or dying in infancy.)

The way I see it, the lesson of the Crucifixion relates to human nature, not to God's.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Yes, I know there are all kinds of theories and speculations about the Atonement. But I do think the NT emphasis on the Resurrection (rather than the Crucifixion or the Incarnation) as the keystone of the Christian faith and the basis of the Christian's hope of salvation is pretty huge.

[infinitarian.livejournal.com]

Yes, I wouldn't particularly argue with that -- just with the contention that "without the Crucifixion there could be no Resurrection". I think the only necessary precondition for the Resurrection was the Incarnation, and Jesus's subsequent death (under whatever circumstances). The Resurrection is the beginning of the "return to God" which I was mentioning above.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Well, that's what I meant -- if Christ hadn't died (in some way) then He couldn't have been resurrected.

But I also do think that the prophecies of the Tanakh indicate that crucifixion specifically was the planned method by which Christ would die. "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up," etc.

And the NT also appears to emphasize that a good deal more (and more important) things happened on the cross than just a man dying in the inevitable way that all men die. "No man takes my life from Me... I lay it down of My own accord."

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

I'm fascinated by this - at one stage (showing my Pagan bias) I was thinking "The open tomb ought to be the symbol, not the cross", but then discovered I hadn't really understood the whole blood and sin thing. What's the significance of the Resurrection - is it miraculous proof of Christ's divinity, or is there more to it, tehologically speaking? :-)

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Paul expounds on the importance of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:12-26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=1+Corinthians+15%3A12-26&version=NIV). Part of the rationale ties back to Genesis, so it's even topical for your reading. :)

Basically, the Resurrection signified a number of things:
a) That Christ was sinless and divine, and therefore death could have no hold on him;
b) That Christ had completely finished the work of atonement for sin;
c) That God was completely satisfied with Christ's finished work;
d) That because Christ was raised from the dead, those who put their trust in Him and identify themselves with Him can also be confident that they too will be raised (which is the gist of the passage I linked above).

Does that make things any more clear?

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Yes indeed - it's the full stop at the end of the sentence! The work is finished for all time. It was sin that introduced death into the world; if there was any sin left over after the Resurrection, Christ wouldn't have been able to return, but he's destroyed the lot. It's also a promise; see, it's possible to rise above all this. (Erm, possibly that last bit is a bit mystical.)