it seems to me...: they would not have crucified the lord of glory

Sunday, July 08, 2007

they would not have crucified the lord of glory

The atonement has been a big topic of discussion lately among several blogs I read (I've trid to link to one sample post from each blog, but I'm sure I've missed at least one blog). I don't really have anything to add to the conversation; I'm still trying to absorb all the ideas and piece the puzzle together.

The fact that I've been thinking over all this is probably the reason the following passage jumped out at me in my daily Bible reading:

But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

- 1 Corinthians 2:7-8

Let's suppose, hypothetically, that things had happened differently: Upon hearing Jesus' teaching, the high priest Caiaphas suddenly realized that he was in the very presence of God. Or Pilate, upon examining Jesus, decided that he should set Jesus free no matter the personal political cost to himself. What if they hadn't crucified the Lord of glory?

These two verses are just a side note in Paul's discussion of the wisdom of God, but he seems to have considered it a genuine possibility that the rulers of the age could have recognized Jesus for who he was, and changed the course of events on that fateful Passover week.

If Jesus hadn't been crucified, how much different would our theology be? Did God have an alternate plan for our atonement just in case Jesus failed to get himself killed?

Did the atonement really rest on the dicey possibility that those in power would not recognize Jesus? Or is there possibly something about power that it necessarily renders those who have it unable to see God at work?

Now I know even less than I did before.

Labels: atonement, scripture, theology

6 Comments:

At 7/08/2007 11:23 PM, Art said...: Man, your post brings up more questions than answers in my mind. I love that! My pastor likes to talk about how symbolic the crucifixion of Jesus really was. Not that it didn't happen but that the literal blood of Jesus did not save anyone so much as it reflects God's saving grace symbolically. He says he's writing a book about this... after he retires.
At 7/09/2007 1:53 PM, Henry Neufeld said...: I once took a young man about to leave for seminary to lunch. He explained to me how he had so many questions and he was excited that he was now going to get the answers.

I said, "I don't know how it will be for you, but I left seminary with more questions than when I entered, and today I have more questions than when I graduated."

He looked so crestfallen I really was sorry I'd said it!
At 7/10/2007 2:04 PM, Peter Kirk said...: Thanks for the link. I have written something like 40 more posts on the atonement since the one from over a year ago which you linked to, so happy reading if you feel like it!

I don't think God had an alternative plan. He didn't need one because he knew that his first plan would work. Only if you hold a rather extreme "open theism" view, that God doesn't know the future at all, would you dispute that. There are of course a lot of issues here about the relationship of free will and predestination. But one must say that if anything at all was predestined, the cross was.
At 7/12/2007 6:50 AM, John Meunier said...: You left out one option - what if Jesus had taken some of the options he had to avoid the cross? The temptation in the desert. The garden.

Was the cross inevitable? Great question.

Of course, only God knows the answer.

Some will say that based on the nature of God, he had to know. And based on the nature of Christ, he would never have refused the cross.

But I don't think we 'know' the nature of God any more than we know anything else. We have faith in God, but our theologies and theories do not box God in.
At 7/12/2007 9:38 PM, Steve Hayes said...: Did the atonement really rest on the dicey possibility that those in power would not recognize Jesus? Or is there possibly something about power that it necessarily renders those who have it unable to see God at work?

An interesting book to read is G.B. Caird's Principalities and powers. and it raises the question whether it is a matter of those who have power, or does the power have them? Do they possess power, or are they possessed by it?
At 7/15/2007 2:07 PM, BruceA said...: Thank you to everyone who has shared their thoughts. I'm still working through this, and I appreciate everyone's insight.