Redemption, Reductions

by Narkissos 48 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  mindmelda

  Interesting discussion. Ransom "scale balancing" was one of the many WTS doctrines I struggled with, too. It seemed simplistic and was.

  I also detected long that Paul's teachings on a few things seem to not be what was discussed by Christ himself, or he covers ideas not even addressed by Christ, and had always wondered why. It's often discussed in scholarly literature on the Bible, this Pauline split in dogma, but you'll never hear anything that concise discussed by the WTS. I went to sources on the internet that discussed Paulist teachings and found answers there, though.

  Their doctrines are quite elementary and I always wondered why some scriptures were just never really discussed on a topic. It seems it's because they don't make a good fit with their concepts.

  The ransom is a complex idea, and since I always chose a more metaphorical interpretation of the scriptures (its the only way I could make some things work in my head), I never could understand where this "scales" idea came into it. How could Christ with his heavenly origin be the equal of Adam, whose origins were earthly? That's MORE than a compensatory ransom, so the idea of "balanced scales" (which isn't even found in the Bible, is it?) is a human convention.

  I once spoke to a progressive Baptist minister who was a neighbor of mine many years ago and was surprised to learn his take on the ransom was identical to the JWs in most ways. They have no unique teaching on that, but they make it seem as though it's unique to them. Hardly the case.

  Sort of echoes the above experience with the Evangelicals...no real difference.
• 

  quietlyleaving

  The Pauline parallels between Adam and Jesus insist on the difference, not the equality between them. And it is not about something "lost" and "found". Adam is positively portrayed as the founder of the extant natural (psychical), mortal, sinful mankind; Jesus as the Second Adam is portrayed as the founder of a new, spiritual (pneumatical), immortal, sinless mankind -- something which the "first Adam" never was and never "lost".

  this point makes me want to go re-read Paul's writing in a fresh sense
• 

  Narkissos

  Thanks all.

  mindmelda,

  I always chose a more metaphorical interpretation of the scriptures (its the only way I could make some things work in my head)

  I stop at this point of your post because I think it is essential to the issue.

  The NT (and later theology) use a number of images in their interpretive schemes; taken literally they are, often, mutually exclusive. For instance, a ransom (paid to the master of a slave or captive to obtain his freedom, or, rather, make him a slave of or a captive to the redeemer) has nothing to do with a sacrifice (offered to a deity, either to make it favourable, as in propitiation, or to erase a certain "sin," as in expiation). The conflation of those two images (one from a commercial setting, the other from a sacral setting) in the WT catchphrase "ransom sacrifice" is literally nonsensical: if taken allegorically a ransom would have to be paid to the devil, or to personified "sin," whereas a sacrifice would be offered to "God". There is no problem in using mutually exclusive images as long as they are taken metaphorically: we simply have an indefinite number of metaphors pointing from different angles to "something" which remains essentially undefined (cf. C.S. Lewis' introduction in BTS' quote above). In one word: a mystery. However dogmatics arbitrarily choose one image and put it at the centre of their system: it is no longer taken metaphorically but a straightforward statement of "truth". No longer a signifier (signifiant), potentially interchangeable with an indefinite number of others, but THE signified (signifié) itself. So the "balanced scales of justice" and the "ransom sacrifice" in WT theology. Or the notion of "expiation" in Calvin.

  From the dogmatical perspective, the central image is the thing itself. Most Christians would naturally consider images which they deem peripheral metaphors; Christ being "the gate," "the vine," "the good shepherd," "the dying and fructifying grain," or even "a sacrifice of pleasant odour" will never be taken literally. Not so with the central image. A JW would never admit that "ransom sacrifice" is just another metaphor; a Calvinist (or Arminian, for that matter) fundamentalist would not admit that "expiatory sacrifice" is just another metaphor.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Thomas Aquinas on the subject. Too lengthy to paste here.

  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm#article1

  BTS
• 

  Leolaia

  Have you read the article " 'Do This as My Memorial' (Luke 22:19): Lucan Soteriology of Atonement" by Francis G. Carpinelli (published in Catholic Biblical Quarterly in 1999)? I greatly enjoyed this study because it describes with clarity the ways in which Lukan theologies of atonement and redemption (rather distinct concepts that should not be confused with each other, with the former emphasizing cultic and the latter the historical dimensions of salvation) differed from those of Paul. In particular, Luke presents such acts of piety as liturgical prayer, almsgiving and partaking of the eucharist as expiatory memorials similar in atoning function as the memorials described in the Mosaic covenent: alms allow one to store up treasure in heaven (Luke 12:33, 18:22), prayer justifies or makes a sinner righteous (Luke 18:14), almsgiving purifies (Luke 11:41), etc. Cornelius is given the Holy Spirit on account of his almsgiving and prayer, even before he is baptized, for "Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God....God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor and ... finds acceptable those from every nation who fear him and do what is right" (Acts 10:4, 31-35; compare 9:36 where Tabitha is described as "always doing good and helping the poor"). Compare with Daniel 4:27 LXX in which a Gentile sinner is told to "entreat him concerning sins and atone for all your iniquities with alms so that equity might be given to you" (and cf. passages on the expiatory value of memorial offerings in Exodus 30:16, Leviticus 5:7-13, Sirach 45:15-16, Tobit 4:11, 12:12, etc.). The contrast with Paul's attitude towards works of the Law cannot be any more striking, and Paul is portrayed in Acts as participating in cultic almsgiving, purification, and offering (Acts 21:24-26, 24:17), and as recognizing the continued function of acts of piety ("serving God day and night") as acting towards the fulfillment of the divine promise of justice (compare especially Luke 18:7, "Will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night?"). There is also the criticism of the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:53 for not obeying the Law that was put into effect. Carpinelli argues that the eucharist instituted in ch. 22 of Luke is intended by the author to be a new memorial alongside the others (with poiete eis tén emén anamnésin in v. 22 read as "do this as my memorial" rather than "do this in remembrance of me", notice the emphasis on doing). This would make Jesus' death as "sacrificial and expiatory without involving notions of substitution and of redemption" (Carpinelli, p. 88).
• 

  Narkissos

  Thank you both.

  BTS: Aquinas is a fascinating rationalisation along the lines of Aristotelian logic. The following quaestiones (47-49) are even more relevant to this topic.

  Leolaia: I had not read Carpinelli but your summary is quite promising. We often think of Matthew and James as frontal oppositions to Paulinism but Lukan theology offers still another, subtler perhaps but equally meaningful difference. Remembrance (mimnèskô ktl.) is a Lukan keyword from the infancy prologue (1:54,72) to the crucifixion (23:42). The omission of the "ransom" (lutron) saying (Mark 10:45//) is also significative from this standpoint, as well as the emphasis on mercy or compassion (e.g. oiktirmôn as a substitute for Matthean teleios, "perfect" in 6:36; in the previous verse, God is characterised as khrèstos, "good" or "kind") and of course the ubiquitous notion of grace (kharis).

  Your post also makes me think of two lexical precisions I ought to make: (1) I entitled this thread "redemption" but meant it in a most general way, as the working of "salvation" from God/Christ's perspective in theology -- not in the narrower sense of "redeeming through ransom" which is only one among many interpretive patterns. (2) Instead of "expiation" I should perhaps have used "atonement" (which seems to be more common in English but has no exact French equivalent, and so sounds a little more "fuzzy" to me, especially when referring to Calvin).
• 

  mindmelda

  Yes, it was when I began to study religions comparatively that a lot of these things stood out to me. Also as a writer, I understand that I'm trying to convey an idea with a metaphor, not a literal fact. Jesus taught primarily by metaphor, the parable is a metaphorical tale to teach a spiritual lesson. Trying to be overly literal with these stories will cause contradiction, no doubt, as they' re not factual stories. I feel the same about the non historical parts of the Old Testament.

  The Bible is written largely in metaphorical language, in languages that are far more designed to express metaphor than English is. Learning that helped me see that trying to literally interpret much of it is a waste of time.

  I was ruined on most WTS teachings for good after reading Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth" many years ago. It pointed out so clearly the metaphors that Judaism and Christianity use are not so different than the ones all faiths use. It is spiritual language and must be seen that way. Trying to parse scripture like a grammar exercise or a tax form is to deny it's power. The metaphorical power of blood, salvation and sacrifice are quite common to many various faiths.

  Paul is quite legalistic in his interpretations, like any good ex rabbi would probably be. I often wonder if he was actually representative of the mainstream of Christain thought at the time, or was simply such a prolific writer that his letters became among the most widely read of the time?

  I find Paul among the most unappealing of Biblical writers, to be honest, except for a few passages. The WTS and some other faiths rely too heavily on his works while ignoring some others for doctrine for my taste.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I often wonder if he was actually representative of the mainstream of Christain thought at the time, or was simply such a prolific writer that his letters became among the most widely read of the time?

  I suspect the latter is true. He is the most prolific NT writer extant. Therefore, his influence on modern sola scriptura restorationist theologies is outsized. The written word was far less important in the ages before the printing press.

  The WTS and some other faiths rely too heavily on his works while ignoring some others for doctrine for my taste.

  A interesting cite in 2 Peter 15-16 regarding Paul:

  Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

  BTS
• 

  Narkissos

  mindmelda,

  Opposing "Paul" to "Jesus" is quite problematic inasmuch as our Gospels are likely dependent on Paulinism, either in a positive way (they are influenced by it, Mark) or in a negative one (they react to it, Matthew), or in a mixed way (Luke, cf. Leolaia's post above). The polemical contents of the Pauline letters testify that they are highly controversial; were they even that "widely read"? They are rarely alluded to before the 2nd-century Marcionite crisis which brings them to the fore. Whatever the case I find them very interesting and original in thinking. It is quite ironical that they sound "legalistic" when you think that they actually provide the most daring arguments against the law. Maybe their rhetorical construction is what most makes them unappealing as compared to the literary freshness of the Gospel narratives and dialogues. I can see why some "hate" Paul (he can be perceived as aggressive, sophistic, disingenuous, obsessional if not paranoid, lol) but I can't help seeing him as a great thinker nonetheless... but it's certainly a matter of taste -- acquired taste as far as I am concerned. :)
• 

  Leolaia

  The omission of the "ransom" (lutron) saying (Mark 10:45//) is also significative from this standpoint, as well as the emphasis on mercy or compassion (e.g. oiktirmôn as a substitute for Matthean teleios, "perfect" in 6:36; in the previous verse, God is characterised as khrèstos, "good" or "kind") and of course the ubiquitous notion of grace (kharis).

  Yes, Carpinelli observes exactly the same thing, with the implication that such an emphasis sits rather uncomfortably with a soteriology of propitiation. In addition to the examples you cited, Carpinelli also cites the Lukan parable of the prodigal son which communicates well the author's view of God's forgiveness.

  Although he does not make the point, I also wonder if the Farrer/Goodacre theory of Lukan dependence on Matthew may shed additional light as well, particularly Luke's redaction of the Sermon on the Mount. The two statements about the Law that could be most construed as embodying anti-Pauline (or at least anti-antinomian) rhetoric (Matthew 5:17-20, 7:22-23) are missing in Luke, although the watering down of the latter in Luke 13:35-37 may have in view the emphasis in Acts on charismatic deeds. The most striking thing is the omission of the command on almsgiving found in Matthew 6:1-4 which has no parallel in Luke despite Luke's repeated stress on almsgiving. I think the reason is that the point of the Matthean passage is that almsgiving must be done in secret, whereas in Luke-Acts it is public and forms an important part of community activity in the Jerusalem church. The command on prayer in Matthew 6:5-15 is handled a similar way in Luke 11, with the stipulation of it being done in secret omitted in the Lukan version.

  Remembrance (mimnèskô ktl.) is a Lukan keyword from the infancy prologue (1:54,72) to the crucifixion (23:42).

  The thing that is really interesting in Carpinelli's paper is the connection he draws between eis anamnésin in Luke 22:19, 22 ("do this as my memorial") and eis mnémosunon in Acts 10:4 ("your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial portion"), and the use of both expressions in the LXX and in extrabiblical literature to refer to cultic memorials: "They shall be loaves as a memorial offering (eis anamnésin prokeimena) set before the Lord" (Leviticus 24:7 LXX), "All her merchandise will be for those who live in the presence of the Lord, to eat and drink and be filled, as a covenant, as a memorial (eis mnémosunon) in the presence of the Lord" (Isaiah 23:18 LXX),"The wicked who sacrifices to me a calf is like one who kills a dog, and he who offers fine flour like one who offers swine's blood, and he who has given frankincence as a memorial (eis mnémosunon) like a blasphemer" (Isaiah 66:3 LXX), "He chose him out of everyone alive to offer a fruit sacrifice to the Lord, incense and a pleasing odor as a memorial portion (eis mnémosunon), to make atonement for the people" (Sirach 45:16; cf. v. 9 and 11), "Then the sons of Aaron shouted; they blew their trumpets of hammered metal; they sounded a mighty fanfare as a memorial (eis mnémosunon) before the Most High (Sirach 50:16, concerning the ritual on the Day of Atonement), "Present your petitions as a reminder (eis mnémosunon), offer them as a testimony before the angels" (1 Enoch 99:3), etc.