Forgiveness of Sins as Restoration pt. 1

I used to view the forgiveness of sins, as a primarily individualistic, ahistorical, and abstract matter- thus my view hinged not upon an objective reality but on an inward sense of being shame free.  This, however much I enjoy a shameless feeling, is mostly unbiblical.  Israel, as we will see, when seeking for forgiveness was not looking for a declaration of cleanliness nor an ahistorical whitewashing of a heavenly account in the sky, rather they were mostly looking for the blessing, prosperity, fertility, and security that, having been formerly promised to them, had been compromised because of their wickedness.  In short, feeling forgiven and being forgiven are two different things.

To grapple with a biblical view of the forgiveness we first must grapple with Israel’s history.  Beginning with Moses, for time sake, we see the Torah given to him at Mt. Sinai.  Specifically we see the blessings of obedience and the curse of disobedience (Deuteronomy 28-29).  To put it simply, Israel’s sins will be punished by exile from their land and a foreign nation ruling over them (among other horrible things).  Then, after the conquest and implementing a Kingship in Israel, both the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah swiftly fell into sin.  God, as we know, punished the sin by exile from the land, while letting a foreign nation rule over them. But when the time for restoration had come and God prepared to bring Israel back He spoke through His prophets:

The punishment of your iniquity, O daughter Zion, is accomplished; He will keep you in exile no longer. Lam 4.22

I am going to bring it recovery and healing; I will heal them and reveal to them abundance of prosperity and security.  I will restore the fortunes of Judah and the fortunes of Israel, and rebuild them as they were at first.  I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sins against me, and I will forgive all the guilt of their sin and rebellion against me. Jer 33

Thus says the Lord:  On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the towns to be inhabited, and the waste places shall be rebuilt. Ezek 36:33

From here, and many other verses that I’m too tired to type out, it is quite clear that the main point of punishment for a sinful Israel is Exile and the main point of forgiveness of sins for an unfaithful Israel is return from exile (or new Exodus).

“So what?” One might say, “what does this mean for me?”  What this means for us is confidence before God that He did not send His Son merely so we can live a pathetic excuse for a life, always striving, enslaved, and burdened in brick yards of our own personal Pharaoh’s while resting our heads that somewhere an eraser has squelched our misdeeds.  This is a sad excuse for salvation and is mostly unbiblical.  No!  Forgiveness of sins is the dynamic power that conveys us from one kingdom of chaos and darkness into the Kingdom of God’s beloved Son.  It is physical healing, physical prosperity, and physical security from enemies that are real. More good news is that there is more to the Crucifixion and Resurrection than you and your personal sin!  God has a worldwide rescue plan of complete restoration and rebirth that is even now taking place.  A guilt-anxiety complex and introspection only keeps us from partnering with him today!

In conclusion we see that forgiveness of sins to the people of God was dynamic and abundant in a wholly objective reality that was vibrantly and violently hoped for, not a remedial eraser for a guilt-anxiety complex.  However, when crops are in the field, family dwelling in safety, and God’s presence is being manifested in and through the community, it will be hard to maintain a guilt complex for very long.  And though we do not see many of the promises linked to forgiveness taking place today; we hope in a future vindication when the consequences of our sins will end and a final restoration/rescue mission will consummate- then we will say with confidence:

“Who is a God like you,

who pardons sin and forgives the transgression

of the remnant of his inheritance?

You do not stay angry forever

but delight to show mercy.

You will again have compassion on us;

you will tread our sins underfoot

and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.

You will be true to Jacob,

and show mercy to Abraham,

as you pledged on oath to our fathers

in days long ago. Micah 7:18-20

 

 

The Crucifixion and The Exodus Pt. II

Redemption

Redemption is a sticky word.  Often times, in evangelical Christianity, it is used interchangeably with other soteriological  words such as atonement, reconciliation, salvation, justification, and forgiveness, as if Paul, when using differing words, means the same thing.  I do not have space here to give exhaustive meaning to the word “redemption,” or to show how it differs from the other terms listed above, but I wish to shed light on its usage and to leave the reader with a running definition.

The word for redemption in Hebrew, “padah” literally means to ransom, redeem, rescue, or deliver.  The term redemption is first used as early as Exodus and Numbers.  But how did the Old Testament use the word “redeem” or “redemption?”  How does this shed light onto our present understanding of Redemption in the Messiah Jesus?

Let’s first take a brief look at the different Old Testament verses that use these words.

 

Ex. 6.6 “Say therefore to the Israelites ‘I am the LORD, and I will free you from the burdens of the Egyptians and deliver you from slavery to them.  I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment.”

 

Deut. 7.8 “It was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath that he swore to your ancestors, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.”

 

Deut. 9.26 “I prayer to the LORD and said, ‘Lord GOD, do not destroy the people who are your very own possession, whom you redeemed in your greatness, whom you brought out of Egypt with a mighty right hand.’”

 

Deut. 13.5 “But those prophets or those who divine by dreams shall be put to death for having spoken treason against the LORD your God- who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery- to turn you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk.  So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

 

Psa. 25.22 “Redeem Israel, O God, out of all its troubles.”

 

Psalm 72.14 “From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight.”

 

Psalm 74.2 “Remember your congregation, which you acquired long ago, which you redeemed to be the tribe of your heritage.  Remember Mount Zion, where you came to dwell.

 

Psalm 77.15 “With your strong are you redeemed your people, the descendants of Jacob and Joseph. Selah

 

Psalm 78.42 “They did not keep in mind his power, or the day when he redeemed them from the foe.”

 

Psalm 103.4 “who redeems your life from the Pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy.”

 

Isaiah 43.14 “Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel:  For your sake I will send Babylon and break down all the bars…”

 

Isaiah 44.22 “I have swept away your transgressions like a cloud, and your sins like mist; return to me, for I have redeemed you.”

 

Isaiah 48.20 “Go out from Babylon, flee from Chaldea, declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim it, send it forth to the end of the earth; say, ‘The LORD has redeemed his servant Jacob!’”

 

Isaiah 49.26 “I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine.  Then all flesh shall know that I am the LORD your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.”

 

Isaiah 50.2 “Why was no one there when I came?  Why did no one answer when I called?  Is my hand shortened, that it cannot redeem?  Or have I no power to deliver?  By my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a desert; their fish stink for lack of water, and die of thirst.”

 

Isaiah 51.10 “Was it not you who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep; who made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to cross over?”

 

Isaiah 63.4 “For the day of vengeance was in my heart, and the year for my redeeming work had come.”

 

Isaiah 63:9 “It was no messenger or angel but his presence that saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.”

 

Jer. 15.21 “I will deliver you out of the hand of the wicked, and redeem you from the grasp of the ruthless.”

 

Jer. 31.11 “For the Lord has ransomed Jacob, and has redeemed him from hands too strong for him.”

 

Now it would take too long for me to cite every verse that speaks of redemption.  I only wished to show the way that biblical authors employed these terms.  If you read over these verses (or just peruse), you will see that redemption does not necessitate payment language.  Rather it deals with Yahweh’s saving acts on behalf of Israel.  Most verses that speak of redemption in the Old Testament refer to Israel in hardship, slavery, and bondage and Yahweh coming through to deliver them.  As a matter of fact, the Exodus was the first place to speak of redemption (6:6) and was used in the context of God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt.  The Song of Moses refers to Israel as “the ones You have redeemed (15:13)” and “the purchased ones (15:16).”

Isaiah and Jeremiah also use “redeem” in the context of national deliverance and the return of exile.  They saw redemption as Yahweh doing what Israel could not do for herself- enacting deliverance.

It is not a coincidence that the New Testament authors used the same word (redemption) when referring to the death and resurrection of Jesus. When using redemption, it is likely that most New Testament authors view it the same way.  I will give some examples.

 

Col 1.13-14 “He has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” (Here Paul is employing apocalyptic imagery to show the deliverance of Yahweh through the Messiah, accomplishing humanities redemption from one kingdom into another… sound familiar?)

 

Eph 1:7 “In Him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our sins, according to the riches of his grace.”

Redemption through blood- Paul is most likely making allusions here to the Exodus and the Passover Lamb. Ephesians is littered with talk of redemption, inheritance, and resurrection- implying both new creation and the new Exodus.

(A quick note about “forgiveness of sins”- Israel saw the exile as a result of, or punishment for her sins.  The exile would be ended only when Israel would be forgiven of her sins.  The biblical author’s emphasized forgiveness not as an abstract declaration of a cleared conscience but as the physical blessing of God returning to His people, and the people returning to their land.  Thus forgiveness divorced from Israel’s return from exile was never in the paradigm of the New Testament writers, but the two must be seen joined together as one.)

 

1 Peter 1.18-19 “knowing that you were redeemed, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.”

Here it is painstakingly obvious that Peter, when using the words “without blemish”  is referring to Exodus 12:5 and the Passover Lamb when talking about redemption by the Blood of the Messiah.  It is interesting that Peter also refers to the readers “time in exile” in the previous verse (17) and casts a vision of hope and salvation in the midst of suffering (sound familiar?) throughout the epistle.

 

Revelation 5:9-10 “You (the Lamb) are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you redeemed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation; you have made them to be a kingdom and priests serving our God, and they will reign on the earth.”

The Lamb here is, again, referring to the Passover Lamb, who is the One that is opening the scroll and releasing judgment on the nations (sound familiar?).  Here again we see the Salvation of the people of God through judgment and blood, this time not out of one nation like the Exodus, but out of every nation, tribe, and people.  Finishing off the song is a reference to Exodus 19:6 “you will be a kingdom of priests.”

 

Time and space fail me to tell of Jesus’ redemption in Romans 3:24 which subsequently flows into Romans 5 and 6; no longer being slaves of sin, as Paul again employs Dominion language when referring to Sin and Death and the believers rescue from it.

 

It is clear that central to the meaning of redemption is deliverance from enemies and the reconciliation of Yahweh to the people of God; in other word, the Exodus.  The death and resurrection of Jesus cannot be seen apart from the Exodus, and if attempted, will be viewed incorrectly.  I hope you swing by again- I will continue to talk about the crucifixion and the exodus in later posts.

The Godforsaken God

In the crucifixion scene, found in the Gospel of Mark, these words spill out of the asphyxiating Jesus before He gives His spirit up, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” meaning “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”  These words were penned, in Psalm 22, a thousand years earlier by King David in his own dilemma with God abandoning him to a painstaking death only to deliver Him later on.  Yet since rolling off of the mouth of Jesus as He gasped to take His final breath, readers of this passage both young and old have pondered the question whether Jesus was in fact “forsaken” as He seemingly claimed.  If He was forsaken; to what degree was He forsaken?

Mark places this dramatic cry of dereliction at the very climax of his gospel narrative, in the very heart of the crucifixion passage (15:34), followed by a scream before giving up His spirit.  But to capture the full weight of the agony of Jesus in Mark’s gospel, one must go back to the Jesus in the garden.  The suffering of Jesus must begai in Gethsemane in order to really lend an ear to Mark.  By giving the narrative that Mark means to set forth, the cry of dereliction, after three hours of darkness, alluding to Amos 9:8 and portraying the absence of the Father, cannot be seen as either a feeling Jesus had or a mental assertion He has made after accumulating all of the evidence to bemoan such a question.  No, this cry came out of experience of abandonment at the fact that darkness was overshadowing the Jewish carpenter and His Father, whom never failed Him, to whom He was crying out “with vehement cries and tears,” yet was not delivering Him from Golgotha.

The cry of Jesus is obviously quoted from Psalm 22; the psalmist’s cry of forsakenness and God’s subsequent vindication of the oppressed.  Mark does not mean for us to assume that Jesus is merely quoting an obscure bible verse from His cerebral commentary, as though being torn between several verses that may fit best; He actually appropriates the verse and the cry to Himself and the events that were unfolding before Him.[1] Though the Psalm itself culminates in decisive victory and salvation for the momentarily forsaken one, this is not what Mark or Matthew was meaning to communicate when adding it in their gospel.[2] If Jesus was meant to allude to the ending of the Psalm, as if the cry is one of victory, why, as John Stott asks, would He in turn quote its beginning?[3] Bauckham goes even further to suggest that if Jesus were to be referring to the whole Psalm, He would have done so in the language it was written, Hebrew, rather than His native tongue, Aramaic.[4]

Jesus is also not merely making an assertion that He is forsaken, but shows His lack of understanding as to why He is forsaken despite His certain foreknowledge of His death (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34, 38).  This has led scholars, most notably Jurgen Moltmann to believe that Jesus cry of abandonment was not simply because He was rejected and murdered by men, but because His love for the Father went so deep, the abandonment of Abba must go to the same depths.[5] He also states that the Son wasn’t the only to suffer at the cross; the Father suffered as well, though not in the same manner.[6] In Moltmann’s view the whole Trinity suffered at Golgotha, not just the Son.

It is ridiculous and very Greek to say, as Augustine and Calvin both affirmed that Jesus could not suffer in His divinity but only in His humanity.[7] If God is impassible, that is unable to suffer in His divine being He is also unable to love.[8] A stoic and impassible God finds little room in the Gospel accounts, as well as the entire biblical narrative, preciously because Jesus, who has a wellspring of emotional capacity, has shown the very glory of the Father (2 Corinthians 4:6).

Back within Mark’s account we also find the words of Jesus’ prayer not addressed to “Father,” but to “My God.”  Though every scholar agrees that Jesus is quoting a Psalm, rendering the use of “My God” insignificant, Moltmann still holds that it bears the weight of abandonment.  Bauckham rightly redirects the argument back to the context of the Psalmists original intent and the fact that the verse is a direct quote from Psalm 22:1.[9] However, Bauckham severs his final argument on the subject by stating that Jesus use of “My God,” was a suitable substitute for “Abba” or “Father,” showing an intimate relationship that is still intact.[10] But the very fact that Jesus is quoting a Psalm doesn’t allow us to make a judgment either way for the very reason that it is a mere quotation.  If Jesus’ use of “My God” cannot be used as a negative connotation because it is a mere quotation, it cannot be used as a positive connotation for the same reason.

Some, believing that Psalm 22 was a pre-Christian messianic psalm, try to assert that Jesus, rather than actually being forsaken by God, was telling the Jews around Him to believe that He was the Messiah because He was fulfilling Psalm 22.  This is a wonderful presupposition other than for the very fact that it has to jump through too many burning hoops to remain viable.

First of all, after bemoaning this cry the people surrounding Jesus say, “Look He is calling for Elijah,” (Mark 15:35) obviously mistaking “Eli” with “Elijah.”  Those closest to hear what He was saying perceived that He was in fact praying or calling to someone.  If He had been saying this as a way to reveal His prophetic fulfillment then why was His cry so misunderstood?  Secondly, if Jesus was not forsaken by the Father, the declaration of Psalm 22 is rendered void because He in reality is not forsaken.  The “prophecy” goes unfulfilled and the Messiah deceives a large number of people when claiming that He is forsaken.  Lastly, Psalm 22 was never seen as a messianic psalm before the crucifixion.[11] It is not to be found in any rabbinical teachings before the cross.[12] It is clear that the Church afterwards adopted it into their wide range of messianic psalms but never before Golgotha.  So why would Jesus quote a psalm to Jews that they were unaware of its prophetic promises?  There is no honest argument within this presupposition.  Bauckham is right to say that if this psalm is seen as a messianic psalm, it must be seen as an “inclusive” messianic psalm rather than “exclusive,”[13] meaning that Jesus, as the Messiah, must sum up in His suffering all those who have ever cried the same cry and prayed the same prayer.

I don’t think it is necessary nor helpful to discuss a breakdown in the Trinity or the death of God.   However, one must assume that Jesus’ communion with the Father was very much altered if not denied while on the cross and in Hades (Acts 2:22-33).  Rather than going to the Trinity, as many Greek thinkers have done, beginning with Their unity, we must begin with Their relationality and move from there to unity.  To imagine that Jesus was in direct communion with the Father even while dead gives a poor representation of the death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus; dichotomizing His humanity and divinity.  To see Jesus forsaken by the Father does not mean that a relationship is no longer present between the Two, rather a gap standing between the Two.  Every human relationship experiences rejection and abandonment, even among the closest of friends but it is not justifiable to no longer call it a relationship merely because these injuries occur.

When Jesus looks back at the foot prints in time, seeing only one set of footprints at Golgotha, He knows that it is only because God was silent and did not intervene, as He laid down His whole self and was abandoned by His own Father.  Jesus forsakenness for us means that God truly understands the condition of humanity in their exile from the Garden of Eden; yet He also understands humanities return from exile typified in His resurrection.  It is here, where we find His identification with those who also suffer Godforsaken death, that the divine identity of Jesus is screaming the loudest.[14]

---

[1] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, Pg. 256

 

[2] N.T. Wright, Matthew for Everyone: Chapters 16-28, Pg. 190

[3] John Stott, The Cross of Christ, Pg. 83

[4] Richard Baukham, Jesus and the God of Israel, Pg. 256

[5] Jurgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, Pg. 80

[6] Ibid.

[7] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, pg. 402

[8] Jurgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, Pg. 32

[9] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, Pg. 258

[10] Ibid.

[11] Rein Bos, We Have Heard that God is with You, Pg. 334

[12] Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Pg. 980

[13] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, Pg. 256

[14] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, Pg. 266

The Crucifixion and the Exodus Pt. 1

The death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah throughout church history has generally been interpreted through a “Day of Atonement” lens.  An oversimplification may look something like:  The world’s sins are imputed to Jesus as the Father pours out wrath upon the Anointed One.  Those who put their hope in this work of redemption will find eternal salvation and “imputed righteousness,” while those who disregard will suffer the wrath of God.  I heard a preacher recently say, “If you don’t let Jesus take the wrath of God for you, then it must be dispensed upon you.”  The end result is that the saints of God are “righteous” (or viewed as obedient 100%) before God because the sin debt is paid for in full.  This is the “Gospel” I grew up hearing.

But I do not believe this view of the atonement is accurate nor helpful.  The New Testament authors did in fact see the cross/resurrection through the Day of Atonement but far more, they saw it through the lens of the Exodus (John 1:28, 1 Corinthians 5:7).  Jesus is our Passover Lamb who was sacrificed for us; but what does this entail?  Where do we stand now?  How was our departure from Egypt enacted and what exactly happened?  I hopefully will answer these questions and more in the following posts but for now I will begin with the debate around the theological world involving… yes- propitiation and expiation.

These two terms can be a little tricky so I will try to explain them carefully and hopefully simply.  Propitiation is the appeasement or satisfaction of a Deities wrath so that it becomes consistent with His character and nature to bless and pardon sinners.  Note that propitiation does not make God loving but enables Him to love those who otherwise would be unlovable.  Expiation on the other hand deals not with the wrathful person but with the object that causes the wrath.  (Example: Sin makes God upset, therefore expiation removes the sin and thus remove s the occasion for anger).  “Peace with God” is not the result of the satisfaction of justice or appeasement of the Deities wrath directly but the expulsion of offense that renders the two parties once set at odds, reunited.

Propitiation

Penal Substitution/Satisfaction, since the time of Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), had become the front runner in the understanding of the cross of Jesus and His subsequent resurrection.  Anselm claimed that man owes God everything since He created them and since the fall man has been racking up that debt by the sins that they commit.  Man has no way to pay God back since from the start everything man owned belonged to God.  Man simply did not have the currency to pay God off for the offenses incurred.  God must vindicate His own name by either destroying humanity because of their debt, or God must send His Son to pay the debt for humanity.  Only if Jesus dies a bloody shameful death, will the debt for humanities rebellion be payed off.  This view is highly rational, however, the deontic, intra-trinitarian exchange poses many problems to a critical mind.  Is God punishing or paying off God for a debt that is owed to God?  The idea itself becomes abstract in that it neither cordially invites talk of ontological or relational problems of sin, sticking primarily to a deontic conception.  This means that Anselm’s atonement, as well as Calvin’s and other propitiatory views, deal almost exclusively with sin as man’s failure to his moral obligation; not even trying to answer the question of “human nature,” and the broken relationships that have now been wrought from sin.  Other problems that “come up” from these views is that fact that it makes God out to not only be a tyrant, but a mathematician and Jesus is merely evening the score.  Penal Substitution also makes little significance of the life and ministry and resurrection of Jesus; they are seemingly before and after thoughts.  It also engages little with any form of systematic and structural evil.  It rather views sin as something man chose to do all the while stating that man could do nothing but choose it.  Its like asking a child to build a spaceship out of legos and then punishing him because he cannot.  When in actuality, there is no way he could.  Also it was hardly ever taught with in the first 600 years after Jesus.  Of the 50,000 pages written on the death and resurrection of Jesus in the following centuries, it is hardly mentioned… ever.

Expiation

Any view of atonement must solve both ontological and relational issues corresponding to sin.  As we have seen, expiation is the removal of sin and, as we have seen, it must function not deontically, but in terms eradicating the “sin nature” and restoring broken relationships.  The concept of Kingdom comes to the forefront in the New Testament texts with Jesus and Paul.  While proclaiming the message of the Kingdom of God, multitudes were being healed, delivered, and set free from a formidable enemy and diametrically opposed kingdom: Satan’s.  Jesus is portrayed as “One stronger than the strong man” who then ties Satan up to plunder his goods (Luke 11:21-22).

Paul also uses Kingdom language, not least in Romans 5-8.   Rather than using Satan, Paul uses the image of Sin and Death reigning over humanity since Adam.  Though in this section Paul never mentions Satan or the devil, he alludes to the Wisdom of Solomon 2:21-24.  Paul says that death entered the world through sin (5:12-14) while WoS asserts it came through the devil’s envy (2:24).  Throughout Romans 5:12-21 and even into 6, Paul uses Kingdom language to portray the present evil age and the one Jesus came to initiate.  “Death reigning”, “taking dominion” and “grace reigns through righteousness” shows a mere glimpse at the word pictures Paul paints for the reader.  Two Kingdoms in opposition to one another, both of which are looking for the allegiance of men.  Conveyed from one kingdom to the next, while waging a cosmic war not against mere flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12) much like that which Jesus warred  against from the cross.  From the gospel accounts to Paul’s writings, it would be negligent to leave out free will and the working of Satan: the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience.  But those are a whole other can of worms.  Expiation must be seen as the removal of sin, the old man, “sin nature,” and Satan.  These powerful enemies stand between humanity and their God.  Forgiveness is a vital part of the atonement but it is not nearly the bulk of it.

Exodus

We now see the a broad scope of a term Theologians call “Christus Victor.”  The victory of God at the cross over principalities and powers that have enslaved men and women since Adam and Eve, finally coming to ahead in Christ.  The Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, is our Passover Lamb that marks out the people of God as Pharoah’s household mourns their loss.  In the death and resurrection of Jesus, as we will see in a later entry, those, once slaves of sin, who now believe in the faithfulness of the Messiah have crossed through the Red Sea, the waters of baptism, and have entered into the age to come by virtue of their union with Christ in His death and resurrection.  As the Greater Moses, Jesus, tied up the strong man, the Pharaoh of this age, Satan, and plundered his goods, he also brought salvation to the captives, while the horse and rider are cast into the sea.  As Egypt was made a public spectacle to the surrounding nations, so once again in the sight of all the nations, God, who has been faithful to the House of Israel, has raised Jesus from the dead and defeated sin and death forever.

This was meant to be a broad overview.  In the next post we will wrestle with question surrounding words associated with the crucifixion like: ransom, redemption, reconciliation, inheritance, and the idea of being purchased.

Embarking on Romans

So I have decided to take a journey into the heart of the greatest letter ever written. Posed with questions and much rhetoric, Romans has taken many a travelers down misguided/miscalculated paths that have altered the christian faith from that time forth. Not that my lowly contribution will add or take away from the reformers pro’s and con’s. I only wish to study the book and know it’s arguments. I am a new perspective guy. I find Witherington, Wright, Sanders, amongst others very stimulating to read. Any how, I am going to try to make an effort to blog more… though I am sure no one has found this blog sight yet.