Redeeming God

Liberating you from bad ideas about God

Learn the MOST ESSENTIAL truths for following Jesus.

Get FREE articles and audio teachings in my discipleship emails!


  • Join Us!
  • Scripture
  • Theology
  • My Books
  • About
  • Discipleship
  • Courses
    • What is Hell?
    • Skeleton Church
    • The Gospel According to Scripture
    • The Gospel Dictionary
    • The Re-Justification of God
    • What is Prayer?
    • Adventures in Fishing for Men
    • What are the Spiritual Gifts?
    • How to Study the Bible
    • Courses FAQ
  • Forum
    • Introduce Yourself
    • Old Testament
    • New Testament
    • Theology Questions
    • Life & Ministry

How does the blood of Jesus cleanse us from our sin? (1 John 1:7-10)

By Jeremy Myers
17 Comments

How does the blood of Jesus cleanse us from our sin? (1 John 1:7-10)
http://media.blubrry.com/one_verse/feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/431767650-redeeminggod-115-how-does-the-blood-of-jesus-cleanse-us-from-our-sin-1-john-17-10.mp3

One of the members of my online discipleship group recently asked me about 1 John 1:7-10 and how the blood of Jesus cleanses us from sin. Here is what he wrote:

I really appreciate your ministry and have been blessed by your books. I have a question for you regarding 1 John 1:7, where it says the blood of Jesus cleanses us from sin. I just listened to your podcast about the two different words for forgiveness, but I’m wondering how this verse plays into it all, since it uses the word “cleanses” – what do I need to know to understand this well? -Eli

Thanks for the question, Eli!

1 John 1:7-101 John 1:7-10 does get discussed in various ways through my online course “The Gospel Dictionary,” but let me try to summarize here some of what I teach in that course. For a fuller understanding, you would need to take the lessons on Blood, Confess, Fellowship, Forgiveness, and Sin. Of course, not all of those lessons are available yet, but they will be soon… But while you wait, you can also read about forgiveness and sin in my book, Nothing but the Blood of Jesus, which discusses these terms.

So here is my basic answer for how to understand 1 John 1:7-10.

Cleansing from Sin (1 John 1:7, 9)

Let us begin by quoting the pertinent verses:

But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. … If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:7, 9).

There are five key terms which help us understand 1 John 1:7-10. We must understand what is meant by the words “sin, blood of Jesus, confess, forgive, and cleanse.” Let us briefly consider all five.

Sin in 1 John 1:7-10

The term “sin” in 1 John does not simply refer to breaking God’s law or doing bad things. Most Christians understand the word “sin” this way, but this is not primarily the way the Bible defines sin.

In Scripture, as in 1 John, sin is primarily the activity and actions that lead to and involve accusing and scapegoating other people. Yes, John says that “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4) but the laws were only given to keep us from accusing, condemning, scapegoating, and killing others in God’s name.

So lying and stealing are sinful, but only because they are part of the actions and behaviors that lead us to accuse, condemn, and scapegoat others. One premier place we see this in 1 John is when John gives the example of Cain murdering his brother Abel (Gen 4). This murder is the first sin in the Bible, and sets the stage for all sinful behavior that follows. (For a longer explanation, listen to my podcast episodes on Genesis 4.)

So sin is the ancient and universal human practice of wrongly accusing, condemning, scapegoating, and killing others in God’s name. This helps us understand what is meant by the term “the blood of Jesus.”

Blood of Jesus in 1 John 1:7-10

Few people actually believe that they engage in the practice of wrongly accusing, condemning, or scapegoating others. We believe that our judgments of others are righteous, valid, and correct. We believe that the people we accuse and condemn truly are guilty of the things we accuse them of.

Jesus died to reveal the source of violenceAnd while it is true that they might be guilty of some of the things we accuse them of, the human tendency is to amplify the sinful behavior of others so that we can turn them into monsters, and dehumanize them, so that we can condemn them, or send them into exile, or even kill them in the name of God.

But few humans recognize that we do such a thing. We don’t admit that our judgments are unjust. We think we rightly accuse and condemn others.

So Jesus came along to reveal the truth to us. And though He was innocent of all wrongdoing, we accused, condemned, and killed Him … and we did this all the name of God. But since He was completely innocent, His unjust crucifixion revealed that we humans have a problem with unjustly accusing and condemning people.

The blood of Jesus reveals this truth to us. And nothing but the blood of Jesus could reveal this truth to us. Only someone who was completely innocent could show us that we humans have a problem with unjustly condemning and accusing other people.

But the sad reality is that even though Jesus revealed this truth to us, few of us recognize our involvement in such behaviors. But we must recognize it, and we must agree that we are indeed guilty of these sorts of accusatory, condemning, scapegoating practices.

Confession in 1 John 1:7-10

The word “confess” means to agree. When Jesus revealed the truth to us by His blood, we are faced with a choice.

We can either agree with what Jesus has revealed, or we can disagree. We can either confess or we can deny that we do indeed engage in falsely accusing and condemning others.

Of course, if we deny that we are involved in such practices, then we’re simply deceiving ourselves and have not yet recognized the truth.

Forgiveness in 1 John 1:7-10

But if we do agree and confess that we have been involved in falsely condemning, accusing, and scapegoating other people, it is then and only then that we can begin to break free from such practices and start loving other people as God wants and desires.

Forgiven and forgivenessThere are two words for forgiveness in the Bible. One is freely extended by God to all people throughout time for all their sins, past, present, and future. The second is only experienced when we humans take certain actions to change our thought patterns or behavior.

It is this second type of forgiveness that is mentioned in 1 John 1:9. So while God has always and freely forgiven us for all our sins, we will not experience this forgiveness in our own lives unless we take some actions to see the truth about ourselves, and take steps to change our behavior.

But this change begins with agreeing or confessing that we practice sin.

Cleansing in 1 John 1:7-10

Only when we agree and confess that we do indeed engage in falsely accusing, condemning, and scapegoating other people will we begin to be cleansed from our practice of this sin in our lives.

The cleansing of our sin is not a spiritual cleansing, but is a cleansing and changing of our actual behaviors going forward. As we are cleansed in this way, we will grow in fellowship with God and with one another.

An Amplified Summary of 1 John 1:7-10

With these five terms in mind, we can now easily understand what John is saying in 1 John 1:7-10. Here is an amplified paraphrase:

1 John 1:7. God walks in the light and we can walk in the light with Him if we agree with the light of truth He has revealed. When we live in light of this, we will live in peace with God and with each other and will no longer engage in the sinful practices of accusing, condemning, scapegoating others, which was revealed to us through the blood of Jesus. When we turn from such practices, we will be cleansed from living in such violent ways.

1 John 1:8. Of course, not everybody wants to admit that they engage in such practices. We humans tend to think that our judgments of others are just, and that our accusations of them have the backing and support of God. But if we believe this way, then we are simply deceiving ourselves, and we have not yet understood the truth.

1 John 1:9. However, if we agree that we do indeed engage in the sinful practices revealed through the bloody death of Jesus on the cross, then God is faithful and just and will help us gain deliverance and freedom from our bondage and enslavement to these practices, and He will help us stop engaging in them any longer. (God has freely forgiven us of all these sins, but if we want to practically be cleansed from them, we need to admit that we engage in them, and then follow the example and teachings of Jesus in how to live with love and free forgiveness instead.)

1 John 1:10. So once again … if you deny that you engage in this basic human practice of accusing, condemning, and scapegoating others … if you think that the people you call “monsters” and “heretics” truly are guilty of everything you accuse them of … if you think that some people truly deserve to burn in hell for all eternity … if you think that war is righteous and good and we need to bomb some groups of evil people off the face of the planet … then you are calling God a liar, and you have not understood the first thing about God and what He taught through Jesus (cf. 1 John 4:7-11).

So what is John teaching in 1 John 1:7-10?

The blood of Jesus cleanses us from sin by exposing sin for what it is and then calling us to no longer live in the way of sacred violence. His blood cleanses us through calling us to practice non-violence.

1 John 1:7The blood of Jesus is not a spiritual antidote to sin which somehow removes the polluting presence of sin from our lives.

No, the blood of Jesus exposes our sacred violence to us so that we can see in our own lives how we make scapegoat victims out of others, and then calls us to no longer live in this way. Instead, we are to walk in the light of Jesus and have fellowship with Him, with God, and with one another (1 John 1:3).

Of course, as John goes on to explain, if we deny what Jesus reveals to us through His blood, and say that we are not guilty of sacred violence toward others, then we simply have not yet seen the truth about the blood of Jesus and have not owned up to our own duplicity and participation in human scapegoating and violence.

Only once we admit it and own up to our role in making victims of others can we then be cleansed from it and work in fellowship with God and others (1 John 1:8-10).

But what about our PAST sins?

While this understanding helps cleanse our life from present and future sins, how does the blood of Jesus cleanse us from past sins?

In other words, while the understanding proposed here helps us turn from our violent, sinful ways in the future, what does 1 John 1:7-10 have to say about our past sins?

The answer is that the text doesn’t say anything about our past sins. It is only concerned with our present and future behavior.

love of GodJohn is primarily interested in make sure that his readers recognize how they have been involved in the violent, bloody, accusatory, scapegoating practices that run this world, and turn from such behaviors to walk in the light of God’s love.[1]

Nevertheless, other passages in Scripture tell us how we are cleansed and forgiven by God from our past sins. Passages such as Romans 3:25-26, 2 Corinthians 5:19, and Colossians 2:13 reveal that God simply overlooks our sin, does not count our sin against us, and freely forgives all people of all their sin.

The instruction in 1 John 1:9 to confess our sins so that we might be forgiven is referring to a conditional type of forgiveness which is not the same thing as God’s free and unconditional forgiveness. Here in 1 John 1:7-10, the issue is not so much about being cleansed from our past sins, but about our present and future behavior as we seek to live in fellowship with God and one another.

So how are you going to live?

First of all, do you see what is revealed through the violent and bloody death of Jesus? Do you see how He revealed the truth that we humans accuse, condemn, scapegoat, and even kill other people in God’s name … but that none of this has anything to do with God, but is in fact the exact opposite of what God wants and desires?

Second, you you agree that you have engaged … and might still be engaging … in some of these practices today? Maybe you are engaging in this practice toward Muslims … or gays … or Democrats … or Republicans … or President Trump … or the Media … or your boss … or your neighbor … or … whomever.

Third, if you recognize you have engaged in some of these practices, then what are you to do about it? Well, that’s what the rest of 1 John is all about, which you can read on your own. But the bottom line is that you need to unconditionally love and freely forgive, just as God loves and forgives us.

But all of that will have to be saved for another study.

If you have questions or comments, leave them in the comment section below … and also, consider joining us in the online discipleship group where we regularly discuss these sorts of topics and passages. If you are already in the group, make sure you have signed up to take “The Gospel Dictionary” course, which is free for you to take inside the group.

Notes:

[1] The Greek word for “cleansing” in 1 John 1:7 is present indicative, and in 1 John 1:9 is aorist subjunctive. Though aorists can indicate past time, the subjunctive mood indicates probability or objective possibility. Therefore, due to the inherent contingency of the subjunctive mood, the implied timing is usually future, so that aorist subjunctive tends to have a future timing, and can even be used as a substitute with the future indicative. See https://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/subj-detail-frame.htm

God is Redeeming God, Redeeming Scripture, Redeeming Theology, z Bible & Theology Topics: 1 John 1:7, 1 John 1:7-10, 1 John 1:9, blood of Jesus, cleanse from sin, confess, confess your sins, confession, death of Jesus, forgiveness, gospel dictionary, One Verse Podcast, sin

Advertisement

How the blood of Jesus Redeems and Rescues Humanity (Ephesians 1:7; 2:13)

By Jeremy Myers
6 Comments

How the blood of Jesus Redeems and Rescues Humanity (Ephesians 1:7; 2:13)
http://media.blubrry.com/one_verse/feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/424846548-redeeminggod-113-how-the-blood-of-jesus-redeems-and-rescues-humanity-ephesians-17-213.mp3

In Ephesians 1:7, Paul writes that “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.”

I have written previously that the blood of Jesus does not purchase forgiveness of sins for us from God. But does Ephesians 1:7 refute this idea? No. In fact, it supports it. Let me show you why.

Ephesians is a book that has been widely misunderstood, especially in light of what it teaches about salvation. Some of my sermon manuscripts on Ephesians might help clarify the book as a whole, but most of the main ideas can also be found in various entries in my Gospel dictionary.

The Basic Summary of Ephesians

redeemed by the blood of JesusThe basic message of Ephesians is that due to religion, humans have lived in rivalry and violence with each other since the foundation of the world, but now, in Jesus Christ, we have been shown a new way of living life so that all the hostilities can now cease.

There is still a struggle, but it is not against each other, but against the forces which seek to drag us back into rivalry, accusation, and scapegoating violence.

The Introduction to Ephesians

Paul introduces some of these themes with one long sentence in Ephesians 1:3-14.

Leading up to Ephesians 1:7 where Paul refers to redemption through the blood of Jesus, it is important to also understand what Paul means when he writes about adoption and election as these words also form a foundation for Paul’s ideas about the blood of Jesus. These words are also carefully defined in my Gospel Dictionary online course.

The basic idea in Ephesians 1:3-14 is that God made us His heirs so that we can have the resources necessary to fulfill our purpose and role within His family.

So what is Paul teaching in Ephesians 1:7?

It is in the context of these ideas that Paul mentions redemption through the blood of Jesus (Ephesians 1:7).

Redemption is when God takes something that is already His, and buys it so that it is twice His. So redeemed us, or bought us back, through His blood.

redemption through his blood Ephesians 1:7

When Paul writes about Jesus redeeming us through His blood, however, we must not think that Jesus was paying off God or Satan with His blood. It is not as though there was a debt of sin to God or to Satan which could only be paid with the blood of Jesus. This is not a biblical idea. (We’ll look at Hebrews 9:22 next week.)

So what did Jesus redeem us from? What did He buy us back from?

The redemption that Jesus accomplished through His blood was a rescue or deliverance of humanity from humanity.

We had enslaved ourselves to an endless cycle of sacred violence and the spilling of blood in God’s name.

By dying as He did, Jesus exposed the myth of redemptive violence and the lies of sacred violence for what they were so that we can be redeemed, bought back, or rescued from this endless cycle of violence and bloodshed once and for all.

We know that this is what Paul means because he explains the phrase “redemption through His blood” with the phrase “the forgiveness of sins.”

The two phrases explain each other, so let’s look at the forgiveness of sins first.

The Forgiveness of Sins

As we discussed previously, there are two main types of forgiveness sin the Bible, one that is free and one that is conditional. The type of forgiveness Paul mentions here is the conditional forgiveness (aphēsis). A good synonym for this type of forgiveness is “release.”

Furthermore, the term “sin” in the Bible primarily refers to the sacred violence that has enslaved all of humanity in a never-ending cycle of rivalry, accusation, and scapegoating sacrifice. I defend this idea in my book, Nothing but the Blood of Jesus.

So when Paul writes about “the forgiveness of sins,” he is referring to our release from the cycle of sacred violence.

And since this phrase explains or defines the first phrase about the redemption through the blood of Jesus, it too can be understood similarly.

Redemption through His blood

Jesus redeemed us, bought us back, rescued us, released us from the never-ending cycle of sacred violence and sin by subjecting Himself to it. He went to the cross and shed His blood for us, not as a payment to God or to Satan, but as a revelation to humanity about the sin which had enslaved humanity since the foundation of the world.

Now that we have this redemptive revelation through the sacrificial death of Jesus, we are able to live in a new way with other human beings.

We can now live at peace, no longer subjecting ourselves to the ways of death and violence founded upon religion, but instead follow Jesus by faith into the ways of love and grace.

If some of this sounds similar to what Paul writes in Ephesians 2, that’s because it is. Paul takes this theme of how humanity has been delivered from violence and death through the blood of Jesus and expands upon it in Ephesians 2.

How Paul Elaborates on this Theme in Ephesians 2:13

Here is what Paul writes in Ephesians 2:13: “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”

Ephesians 2 is a powerful chapter, but it has been terribly misunderstood and misapplied by the church today. The traditional understanding of Ephesians 2 goes something like this:

We humans are evil sinners, under the control of the devil and our sin nature. We were dead and unable to do anything to change. Worse yet, because of sin, God’s wrath burns against us, and He wants to send us all to hell (Ephesians 2:1-3).

But God also loved us, and so wanted to do something to fix what had gone wrong. Someone had to pay the price for our sin, and God knew we couldn’t, so He sent His Son Jesus to die in our place and pay for our sin. Now, if we believe in Jesus, we get eternal life. But this still doesn’t get us off the hook. God still wants us to obey Him and do the good works He prepared for us to do (Ephesians 2:4-10).

But these good works don’t involve keeping the law and commandments, because those have been done away with. Instead, let’s just live in peace and unity with each other (Ephesians 2:11-22).

Yet this sort of summary of Ephesians 2 does not logically follow what Paul wrote in Ephesians 1, nor does it fit well with the rest of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.

Furthermore, it does great injustice to the expanded discussion about peace in Ephesians 2:11-22. Most Christian sermons and messages on this chapter focus an inordinate amount of time and space on Ephesians 2:8-9, and very little on Ephesians 2:11-22, which is where Paul focuses his time.

The best way to approach Ephesians 2 is to “reverse engineer” it. By beginning where Paul concludes, we can better understand how Paul starts.

Reverse Engineering Ephesians 2

Paul has a clear progression in Ephesians 2, following the “Problem (Ephesians 2:1-3)—Solution (Ephesians 2:4-10)—Application (Ephesians 2:11-22)” format. By starting with the application, we can better understand the solution and the problem.

The Application (Ephesians 2:11-22)

In Ephesians 2:11-22, Paul explains how groups of people who formerly were hostile enemies can now live together in peace and unity because of what Jesus Christ has done. Feuding groups throughout history have used race, religion, and politics (the Jew-Gentile division was a toxic combination of all three) to look down upon each other and accuse one another of being less than human and less-loved by God.

But now Jesus has broken down the walls of hostility and brought everybody into one family where we live by new rules. This new way of living was revealed and explained through the life and death of Jesus Christ.

When we build upon the foundation He laid, we grow into the people that God has always wanted and desired, and it is then that God is truly manifested in us, just as He was in Jesus.

The Solution (Ephesians 2:4-10)

So if Paul’s concluding “Application” is that people who were formerly at odds with one another (in an accusatory violent way) can now live at peace by following the example of Jesus, it only makes sense that in the “Solution” section, Paul talks about how Jesus brought the warring groups together and showed us how to live in peace.

Not surprisingly, this is exactly what Paul explains in Ephesians 2:4-10. These verses, though quite popular as texts about how to receive eternal life by grace alone through faith alone, are actually about what God has done to rescue us from the condition described in Ephesians 2:1-3 (see below), so that we can become what is described in Ephesians 2:11-22.

blood of Jesus redeems usPaul’s point in these verses is that even though we humans accusation, blame, condemn and kill others in God’s name (Ephesians 2:1-3), God Himself does not behave that way toward us.

God does not bring an end to life, but raises us up to new life in Jesus Christ. Beyond that, He also raised us up with Jesus Christ and seated us with Him in the heavens so that we can live according to the heavenly rules, rather than the ways of this world.

God acted this way toward us by grace. And by grace, we can act this way toward others since we now are seated with Christ in heavenly places.

But we can only live this way if we follow Jesus by faith. Ephesians 2:4-10 is not talking about how to receive eternal life, but is instead talking about how God rescued us from our enslavement to the sin of death and showed us a new way of life in Jesus Christ.

This new way of life is what we were made for originally, and what God has always modeled for us, and what we are now to walk in, as we follow Jesus by faith. In other words, this text is not about how to go to heaven when you die, but rather about how to go from slavery to death in this world as we war against others (Ephesians 2:1-3), to unity and peace with others as we live in the family of God (Ephesians 2:11-22).

The Problem (Ephesians 2:1-3)

This brings us back to the beginning of the argument in Ephesians 2:1-3 where Paul presents the human “Problem.”

A proper understanding of this passage requires us to accurately define the words “dead,” “flesh,” “sin,” and “wrath” (which I will do in the Gospel Dictionary course), and to understand what Paul means when he refers to the ruler of the kingdom of the air.

When all of these concepts are understood, we see that Paul begins Ephesians 2 by teaching that we humans live in a world of sin and death, which we inflict upon ourselves by accusing, condemning, and killing one another, and justifying it all by doing these things in God’s name. We do these things because in our flesh, we know of no other way to live.

Even we religious people kill and are killed, just like everyone else (Ephesians 2:1-3). This is the human problem, and we are enslaved to it because we know of no other way to live (though such life is ruled by death).

So the overall summary of Ephesians 2 is that while we humans tend to live in hatred and violence toward one another (thinking that this was also God’s way), now Jesus has revealed a better way, and we can follow Him in this way by faith.

If we do, we will live at peace with one another and in so doing, truly reflect God to a watching world.

What is Paul teaching in Ephesians 2:13?

So then, with all this in mind, the explanation of Ephesians 2:13 is quite simple.

The violent death of Jesus on the cross revealed the truth about religious-political violence: that it is we humans who want and desire it; not God.

The blood of Jesus reveals that God never wanted or needed blood sacrifice or sacred violence of any kind in order for people to draw near to Him. All people were always welcome.

As a result, Gentiles are just as near to God as anyone else. Gentiles are not to be kept at a distance from God, nor are they more sinful or less pure in God’s eyes. There is no dividing wall of separation or religious commandments and ordinances which keep some people cut off from God’s love and grace.

No, all are invited in. All are welcome.

The blood of Jesus has brought everyone near, by proving that no one was ever kept at a distance.

All divisions of men are nothing more than man-made divisions, and now Jesus has torn them all down.

So how does the blood of Jesus Redeem us?

Ephesians 1:7 redemption through his bloodBy looking at Ephesians 1:7 and Ephesians 2:13, we now understand how the blood of Jesus redeems us.

Jesus did not buy off God or pay the debt of our sin to God. After all, if God had been “paid for our sins” then He would not be able to forgive us. (When someone owes you a debt, you can either get re-paid or forgive their debt, but you cannot do both. Payment of debt and forgiveness of debt are mutually exclusive.)

But Jesus did need to die, and He needed to die in a bloody, violent, sacrificial way. Why? To redeem, rescue, and deliver humanity from the sin and violence that we have always committed against each other (but blamed God for doing).

Jesus wanted us to be released from our sin, and so He died to reveal our sin to us.

Now that our eyes have been opened, we can live in a new way with God and with others. We can live in peace, without the dividing walls of hostility, and without the blame, violence, and scapegoating that we perform in God’s name.

Jesus came to show us a new way to live, which is exactly what He did through His life, death, and resurrection.

We have redemption through His blood because He redeemed us from our sinful and violent way of living and revealed to us God’s way of living. His bloody death released us from addiction to sin and scapegoating, and showed us how to live in the way of love and forgiveness.

Here is how to understand Ephesians 1:7 and Ephesians 2:13:

Through the blood of Jesus, we have been bought back from our slavery to sin and violence. We have been released from our addiction to scapegoating others in God’s name. He did this out of His great love and grace for us. Therefore, now we who were once far off from God have been brought near to God through the blood of Jesus. Through Him we see a new way to live, a way which leads to peace with God and peace with one another.

If you want to learn more about this entire idea, read my book Nothing but the Blood of Jesus.

The Gospel DictionaryUnderstanding the Gospel requires us to properly understand the key words and terms of the Gospel. Take my course, "The Gospel Dictionary" to learn about the 52 key words of the Gospel, and hundreds of Bible passages that use these words.

This course costs $297, but when you join the Discipleship group, you can to take the entire course for free.

God is Redeeming God, Redeeming Scripture, Redeeming Theology, z Bible & Theology Topics: blood of Jesus, Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 2, Ephesians 2:13, forgiveness, forgiveness of sins, Nothing But the Blood of Jesus, peace with God, redemption

Advertisement

No, the blood of Jesus did not buy forgiveness of sins from God (Matthew 26:28)

By Jeremy Myers
34 Comments

No, the blood of Jesus did not buy forgiveness of sins from God (Matthew 26:28)
http://media.blubrry.com/one_verse/feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/421529790-redeeminggod-112-did-jesus-shed-his-blood-to-purchase-forgiveness-of-sins-from-god-matthew-2628.mp3

In Matthew 26:28, Jesus says, “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Does this mean that the blood of Jesus had to be shed so that He could buy forgiveness of sins for us from God?

Let’s see … what is the best way to answer this question? … Let me try this:

NO!

Ha!

blood of Jesus ChristBut I bet you want a better explanation …

I know that there are several verses in the Bible that some use to argue for the idea that Jesus had to shed His blood to purchase forgiveness of sins from God, but when carefully studied in their contexts, none of these Bible passages are teaching this idea.

God has always forgiven all people of all their sins simply because this is who God is. He did not need to be paid off or bought before He could forgive us. (That wouldn’t be forgiveness anyway…. you can either forgive a debt or be repaid, but not both.)

Matthew 26:28 is one of the passages that sometimes is quoted in defense of this idea that Jesus paid for our sins with His blood.

During the Last Supper on the night before His arrest, trial, and crucifixion, Jesus shared the Passover Meal with His disciples and imbued new symbolism into the bread and wine.

He said that the bread represented His body broken for them and the wine represented His blood shed for them. He then said that these things point to the new covenant in His blood, which is for the forgiveness of sins.

Some seem to assume through this description of events that Jesus was teaching His disciples that His blood would purchase the New Covenant and the forgiveness of sins from God.

But there are two keys which provide a better understanding of this text. A careful look at the context and what the rest of the New Testament teaches about the New Covenant and forgiveness reveals something different.

Let us briefly consider both concepts and how they relate to Matthew 26:28.

Matthew 26:28 and the New Covenant

Jesus was not teaching that His blood was the purchase price for forgiveness and the New Covenant, but that His blood was the sign of such things.

crucifixion of JesusIn reference the New Covenant, the blood of Jesus signaled that this New Covenant was now in effect. In essence, Jesus died to inaugurate or enact the New Covenant.

It is important to think of the New Covenant, not as a new system of laws and regulations to keep, but instead as a Last Will & Testament. And indeed, the term Jesus uses here does have this idea in view. Jesus is not sharing a new legal Contract, but new legal Will.

When we think of the Covenant as a “Last Will & Testament” rather than as a legal contract (as the Greek words used seem to indicate), it becomes clear that a Last Will & Testament is not put into effect as long as the one who made it still lives (cf. Hebrews 9:15-17).

For a Last Will & Testament to be enacted, the one who made it must die. Yet since this is God’s Last Will & Testament, and since God cannot die, it was impossible for the Will to come into effect unless God became human and died as a human, which is what He did in Jesus Christ.

So when Jesus speaks of His blood representing the New Covenant, He is pointing out the fact that the New Covenant which had been promised through the Old Testament prophets (cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34) would now be put into effect because the one who made this Last Will & Testament was now here and was about to die.

All of this is explained in more detail in Hebrews 9–10.

So when we understand that Jesus is talking a Last Will instead of a legal contract in Matthew 26:28, we then understand that the blood of Jesus was for the purpose of enacting the legal terms of this new Last Will & Testament. The death of Jesus was not needed to buy forgiveness, but to enact a new Will.

But what about the statement in Matthew 26:28 about the forgiveness of sins? Doesn’t that prove that Jesus did, in fact, die to purchase forgiveness of sins from God?

Matthew 26:28 and the Forgiveness of Sins

When it comes to the forgiveness that Jesus mentions in Matthew 26:28, it is critical to recognize that there are two types of forgiveness in the Bible.

cup of new covenantThere is charizomai forgiveness and aphēsis forgiveness. Charizomai forgiveness is based on the free grace (charis) of God and is freely extended to all people throughout all time for all sins, with no strings or conditions attached.

Aphēsis forgiveness, however, does have conditions, such as repentance and turning from sin. But aphēsis forgiveness has nothing to with our standing with God or what He thinks about us. Aphēsis forgiveness is not about our relationship with God.

Instead, aphēsis forgiveness is about our relationship with sin. Aphēsis forgiveness is only about one thing, and that is whether or not we are addicted to sin or break free from sin. This is why a better English translation for aphēsis is “release” or “remission.”

Aphēsis forgiveness is not about getting forgiveness from God, but is instead about breaking free from the addictive and destructive power of sin in our lives.

If you are addicted to a certain type or pattern of sin in your life, God has 100% forgiven you for this sin. This is charizomai forgiveness. But God’s charizomai forgiveness doesn’t help you much in breaking free from sin. For this, you need to repent, confess, and take steps to turn away from this sin, and start following God instead. When you do this, you will gain aphēsis, release, from the power of sin in your life.

So what kind of forgiveness is Jesus talking about in Matthew 26:28? It is aphēsis, release. This is why many Bible translations use the word “remission” here instead of “forgiveness.”

Jesus is not talking about how He is going to get God to forgive our sins. No, Jesus is talking about how His life and death, about how His shed blood, is going to help us break free from the power of sin in our lives.

Jesus is telling His disciples that through His blood, that is, through His violent death as a sacrificial scapegoat, they will gain deliverance and release from the sin that has enslaved humanity since the foundation of the world.

And this is exactly what happened. The violent death of Jesus on the cross exposed the lie of scapegoating and sacrificial violence for what it was. Those who see this lie are then able to live their lives in freedom from it.

How to Understand Matthew 26:28

So Jesus’ words at the Last Supper closely mirror what we have seen about blood in Genesis 4:10 and Hebrews 12:24 above. The murder of Abel by Cain represents the fratricidal, murderous violence upon which all human civilization is built. In unveiling this sin, the author of Hebrews compared the word spoken by the blood of Abel with the Old Covenant, and then contrasts this with the word spoken by the blood of Jesus and the New Covenant.

Matthew 26:28 blood of new covenant

Whereas the Old Covenant and the blood of Abel was concerned with sacrifice, vengeance, and retaliation, the New Covenant based upon the blood of Jesus speaks of grace, mercy, and forgiveness.

And this is what Jesus says to His disciples during their Last Supper.

He brings them to the table and says, “I’m going to inaugurate a New Covenant, a new way of doing things, a new Last Will & Testament. And it’s going to be put into effect through my death. And when you see what I am revealing through my death, you will gain release from the addictive and destructive power of sin that has enslaved humanity since the foundation of the world.”

Do you see? There is no mention in here of buying forgiveness from God. Quite the opposite in fact. Jesus is not saying, “I am going to die so God can forgive you.”

No, Jesus is saying, “I’m going to die so that you can learn that God has ALWAYS forgiven you, and my death will show you how to live in a similar way toward others. My death is going to show you how to extend unconditional love and free forgiveness toward others, as God has always extended toward you. And when you live this way, you will break free from the sin of violent, bloody, sacrificial scapegoating that has plagued humanity since the very beginning.”

So do you see?

The Old Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, enslaved us to sin, and thus, to sacrificial and scapegoating violence.

But the New Covenant in Jesus, introduced to us and inaugurated for us through His own violent death on the cross, shows that we are completely forgiven and have always been forgiven, and that there is nothing for which God will not forgive us.

The New Covenant enacted through the death of Jesus which brings release from our bondage to sin.

Therefore, we too can forgive. Rather than lash out in violence against those who wrong us, we can, like God, simply extend love and forgiveness.

By seeing God’s loving, forgiving, non-retaliatory character through the death of Jesus, we are shown the way to live in loving, forgiving, non-retaliatory community with other people. Observing the Lord’s Supper serves as a reminder of the way we are to live with one another.

In the Last Supper, Jesus used the cup of wine to symbolize how He was making a new Last Will & Testament with humanity. This time, the Testament will be put into effect by His own blood.

When we see Him do this, it is then that our eyes are opened to the truth about sin. What we see in the death of Jesus helps us finally break free from the destructive power of sin that has plagued humanity since the foundation of the world.

This is how the death of Jesus reveals our sin to us, and releases us from the bondage of sin in our lives.

Jesus did not buy forgiveness of sins for us from God, but instead revealed that God has always loved and only forgiven, and we can live this way as well.

The Gospel DictionaryUnderstanding the Gospel requires us to properly understand the key words and terms of the Gospel. Take my course, "The Gospel Dictionary" to learn about the 52 key words of the Gospel, and hundreds of Bible passages that use these words.

This course costs $297, but when you join the Discipleship group, you can to take the entire course for free.

God is Redeeming God, Redeeming Theology, z Bible & Theology Topics: blood of Jesus, crucifixion of Jesus, death of Jesus, Easter, forgiveness, forgiveness of sins, Matthew 26:28, New Covenant

Advertisement

Why is the Bible so Bloody? Jesus tells us why in Matthew 23:29-35

By Jeremy Myers
6 Comments

Why is the Bible so Bloody? Jesus tells us why in Matthew 23:29-35
http://media.blubrry.com/one_verse/feeds.soundcloud.com/stream/417229323-redeeminggod-111-why-is-the-bible-so-bloody-and-violent-matthew-2329-35.mp3

Lots of people wonder why the Bible is so bloody … that is, why there is so much violence and bloodshed in the Bible. (I am going to provide a brief explanation below, but if you want a more detailed explanation, you can read my book, Nothing but the Blood of Jesus.)

Many Christians often condemn the Muslim Qu’ran for being a violent book, but did you know that the Bible is far more violent than the Qu’ran? And this is not just descriptions of violence. There are more endorsements and commands to violence by God in the Bible than in the Qu’ran.

Of course, many Christians rightly point out that Jesus came and changed all that. That Jesus revealed a new a different way, a way of love and forgiveness.

I agree.

blood to horses bridles Revelation armageddonBut then many Christians turn right around and say, “But in the future, Jesus is going to return to this earth, and slaughter millions of people. There will be the greatest, bloodiest war the world has ever seen. When Jesus returns at the battle of Armageddon, the Valley will be filled with blood up to the horse’s bridle.”

So … wait. Is Jesus violent and bloody or not?

Are we saying that God in the Old Testament was violent and bloody, and then Jesus showed up to try love and forgiveness, but at the end of the world, even Jesus realizes that violence and bloodshed is the only solution after all? That love and forgiveness doesn’t actually work?

I think something is terribly wrong with this way of reading the Bible.

And by the way, this way of reading the Bible causes people to become violent themselves. I have heard Greg Boyd say that we become like the God we worship. If we worship a God who is violent at heart, and even though He tries love and forgiveness for a bit, He ultimately resorts to violence and bloodshed … then this is how we will act toward others.

This is why we hear Christians say, “Well, we tried to love and forgive those people over there …we really did, but they didn’t change, so now we are forced to drop bombs on them.”

Maybe we don’t drop bombs on them … but we do feel justified to hate other people when they don’t respond to our attempts to love and forgive them.

I had a conversation on Facebook Messenger the other day which reveals this attitude pretty well. Here is a screenshot:

(By the way, if you want to Message me on Facebook, you can do so here.)

Do you see? When we believe that God loves for a while, but then turns to hate when people don’t respond to Him, this causes us to hate those who don’t respond quickly enough to our evangelism efforts.

Now, if this is truly the way God is, then I agree that this is how we can behave as well.

But I do not believe that God is hateful, angry, violent, or bloody. I believe that Jesus reveals that God is quite the opposite. I believe that Jesus shows us what God is like, and that God has always been and always will be just like Jesus in the Gospels.

Jesus says “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father.” Paul says in Colossians 1:15 that Jesus “is the image of the invisible God.” The author of Hebrews says that Jesus is the exact representation of God, the express image of His person (Hebrews 1:3).

Now when Jesus, Paul, and the author of Hebrews were teaching these things, they were talking about how Jesus lived during this life on earth as recorded in the Gospels.

During His life and ministry, Jesus did not engage in bloody violence or acts of vengeance upon anyone. Instead, He always loved and only forgave.

If we believe that Jesus, Paul, and the author of Hebrews knew what they were talking about, then we are forced with a decision: We must either decide that Jesus was hiding the dark, bloody, and violent side of God so that He did not actually reveal to us the full and perfect image of God (and therefore, Jesus, Paul, and the author of Hebrews are not telling the truth), or we must decide that Jesus did, in fact, fully reveal God to us (as He claims to have done), and so God has never been violent and bloody, and never will be.

does God hate us while Jesus loves us

For myself, I believe that Jesus is telling the truth, and so is Paul and the author of Hebrews.

Which means we need to figure out why the Bible is so violent and bloody. We need to figure out why the Bible contains so much bloodshed. We need to figure out why God apparently commands so much violence and bloodshed in the Old Testament. We need to figure out why John writes in the book of Revelation about the return of Jesus in such violent and bloody ways.

Thankfully, this is not something we have to figure out on our own. Jesus Himself told us why the Bible is so violent. He did this in numerous ways and at various times during His life and ministry.

The greatest explanation was provided through His crucifixion, of course, but many of the parables and teachings of Jesus were also directed at revealing the truth to us about why the Bible is so bloody and violent.

Jesus tells us why the Bible is Bloody (Matthew 23:29-35)

One of the key texts where Jesus reveals this is Matthew 23:29-35 (cf. Luke 11:49-51):

[You] say, “If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.” … Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

why is the Bible so bloody and violentIn this text, Jesus provides a summary of how He reads and understands the Old Testament. This is “The Old Testament according to Jesus.” And according to Jesus, the Bible is filled with violent bloodshed.

From Abel to Zechariah, from A-to-Z, the Bible reveals the violence of the human heart as we kill others in the name of God. According to Jesus, the Hebrew Scriptures are primarily about a revelation of bloodshed.

They reveal what the origins of bloodshed, and how sacrificial religion is often at the root of bloodshed, as human beings kills others in the name of God.

And it is not just evil sinners who are killed in the name of God, but righteous, innocent victims, such as Abel, Zechariah, and the prophets.

Jesus also says that the people in His day are doing the same thing.

This violent murdering of others in God’s name is the constant human sin of every culture and every generation. Yet no generation thinks that they themselves are guilty of it. The people in Jesus’ day say that if they had lived in the days of the prophets, they would not have participated in killing the prophets. Yet the people in Jesus’ day killed Jesus.

Today, we say that if we had lived in the day of Jesus, we would not have participated in killing Jesus. But is this true?

If you had lived in the days of Jesus, do you think you would be among those who cried out for His arrest and crucifixion? Or would you instead be among those who stood faithfully at His side and wept for Him as He bled and died?

Do not be too hasty to answer.

In Matthew 23:29-35, Jesus explains that the religious people who claim they would not have participated in murdering the prophets are the very same people who are planning to kill the prophets of their own day.

In this context, Jesus clearly equates blood with murder and violence, and especially the bloodshed that is religiously motivated. When the Bible speaks of blood, it primarily has in mind the sacrificial and religious bloodshed which takes place when we kill and murder in God’s name.

Of more importance, however, is the shocking truth that this text contains for us modern Christians. We Christians like to say that if we had lived in the days of Jesus, we would not have been among those calling for His crucifixion, but would have sided with Him instead, defending His innocence and calling for His release.

Sadly, Jesus disagrees with our assessment. The human condition and tendency is to side with the mob in calling for the death of the innocent scapegoat victim. The religious people in Jesus’ day claimed that they would not have participated in killing the prophets of old, yet it is they who led the charge in accusing, condemning, and killing Jesus.

Just as with every other violent text in Scripture, Matthew 23:29-35 is a serious call to take a careful look at the condition of our own hearts toward others.

This text, like so many others, was not primarily written so that we can condemn the ignorance of those in the past, but so that we can allow this text to expose the darkness in our own hearts. Just as the people in Jesus’ day were guilty of the same sins they condemned in their ancestors, so also, we are guilty of the same sins we condemn in them.

We say we would not have condemned Jesus, yet it may very well be that the people we think God should kill today are the very prophets whom God has sent to us to reveal our sin. Who is it that you want to see dead?

Who is it that you believe God could (and should) “righteously” kill? Could it be that you only think this about them because they are exposing your sin to you, just like the prophets of old?

This reveals why the Bible, and especially the Old Testament, is so violent.

Jesus died to reveal the source of violence

Why is the Old Testament so Violent?

Much of the Old Testament is filled with blood, whether it is the blood spilled in the sacrificial rituals of the Mosaic Law or the blood spilled during Canaanite Conquest and subsequent wars of Israel.

It is not without reason that some have called the Bible the bloodiest religious book in human history. Such a charge is not unfounded, for when the actual calls for violence and bloodshed are tallied, the Bible has more bloody texts than the Muslim Qur’an or any other religious holy book.

The proper response to all this bloodshed in the Bible, however, is not to try to explain it away and justify God as the bloodiest deity in the history of religion, but instead to embrace the revulsion that we feel and recognize that the reason the Bible is so bloody is not so that we emulate the behavior we read about in its pages, but instead to see these events as though they were a mirror being held up to our own faces (James 1:23-24).

In Matthew 23:29-35, Jesus says that the Bible is so violent and bloody, because it reveals what we ourselves are doing in our own day. Jesus says that the Bible is so violent and bloody, not so that we can condemn the people of the past, but so that we can see how we ourselves participate in the same exact bloodshed and violence.

Jesus says that the Bible is so violent and bloody, not because it reveals what God is like (for only Jesus does that), but because it reveals what mankind is like. And therefore, what we are like.

The Old Testament does not reveal God to us as much as it reveals mankind to us.

The bloody passages of the Old Testament provide a better glimpse into the heart of man than they do the heart of God.

This is how to read the violent portions of the Bible, so that when we turn away from them in revulsion, we are trained to turn away from similar violent tendencies in our own heart as well.

Until we read the Bible this way, we will forever be confused about why there is so much blood and violence in the Old Testament. But once we read the Bible through this lens, we see that the Bible reveals man to us so that in Jesus Christ we receive both a perfect revelation of what God is like and a perfect revelation of what mankind is supposed to be like.

Through His death on the cross, Jesus willingly submitted Himself to the violent death of ritualistic sacrifice as a way of exposing to humanity the sin to which humanity is enslaved.

Jesus died, not to affirm and reinforce the idea that God wants blood sacrifice, but to unveil and expose the truth about sacrifice, the truth that it is we who want sacrifice; not God.

It is we who shed blood; not God.

By letting us kill Him in such a violent and bloody way, Jesus unveiled the truth about humanity and the truth about sin, and in so doing, called us to abandon these scapegoating, sacrificial rituals in our own lives.

By letting us shed His blood, Jesus revealed that all such scapegoating sacrificial rituals have nothing whatsoever to do with God and originate instead within the hearts of mankind.

Jesus fully exposed and unveiled the mystery of the scapegoat sacrifice by fully submitting Himself to it.

Through His life and death, Jesus revealed how to live:

We are not to make sacrificial scapegoat victims of others, while at the same time we are to willingly lay down our lives for others.

The blood of Jesus reveals that true life does not come through the death of others, but through the death of self for the sake of others. While seeking life through the death of others leads only to more death, seeking life through the death of self leads to life for all.

The blood of Jesus teaches that while humans seek death, God seeks life, and so when the life of God is in us, we will stop seeking the death of others.

To learn more about this, get my book, Nothing but the Blood of Jesus, or take my online course, The Gospel Dictionary, which you can take for free by joining my online discipleship group:

The Gospel DictionaryUnderstanding the Gospel requires us to properly understand the key words and terms of the Gospel. Take my course, "The Gospel Dictionary" to learn about the 52 key words of the Gospel, and hundreds of Bible passages that use these words.

This course costs $297, but when you join the Discipleship group, you can to take the entire course for free.

God is Redeeming God, Redeeming Scripture, Redeeming Theology, z Bible & Theology Topics: blood, blood of Jesus, crucifixion of Jesus, death of Jesus, Matthew 23:29-35, violence, violence of God, violence of Scripture

Advertisement

Greg Boyd reviews “Nothing but the Blood of Jesus” and I Respond

By Jeremy Myers
13 Comments

Greg Boyd reviews “Nothing but the Blood of Jesus” and I Respond

Greg BoydIn one of his recent email newsletters (which you can read here), pastor and world-renowned theologian Greg Boyd included a review of my book, Nothing but the Blood of Jesus. Below is his review, interspersed with my comments and responses.

Before we get started however, let me state a critique of Greg’s critique. The vast majority of Greg’s critique of my book is focused on one-fifth of the book, namely, the two chapters on scapegoating. Yet the ideas in these two chapters were built on the ideas from the previous six chapters (two each on sin, law, and sacrifice). And as I read Greg’s critique of what I wrote about scapegoating, I gained the distinct impression that he had not seriously read the previous six chapters, where many of his concerns are addressed.

Even then, as I read Boyd’s critiques of scapegoating, I once again had the distinct impression that what I wrote was being misunderstood and misrepresented. For example, some of what Greg says I wrote about Achan in Joshua 7 is not actually found in my book. Yes, if certain statements are read out of context, I could see how Greg could get his ideas from what I wrote.

I feel that if Greg had let go of some of his presuppositions and had considered the five themes of my book as a whole, some of his critiques below would not exist.

All authors deal with this. Greg has said the exact same thing to me about my critiques of his cruciform thesis. In response, I have tried to listen more closely and read his books more deeply so that I might better understand. I also appreciate him taking the time to engage with me in dialogue.

So here is his review with my responses. His review is in the blockquotes.

I met Jeremy Myers at the ReKnew Cross Vision Conference and he graciously gave me a copy of his book, Nothing But the Blood of Jesus. I had read Jeremy’s review of my book, Crucifixion of the Warrior God (CWG) as well as other reflections of his on a Facebook page dedicated to discussing this book, so I was aware that our views overlap on certain points and diverge sharply at others. Reading Nothing But the Blood of Jesus clarified these points of agreement and disagreement.

It was great meeting Greg. I especially enjoyed meeting many of the other people who attended the conference, some of whom already knew me from my books and podcast.

Greg mentions the Facebook group, which he also mentioned at the conference in the Saturday morning session where he and I talked on stage for a couple minutes. At that time, I think he said the group was vitriolic. I never saw any vitriol there, but that might be due to the fact that I was not really active in this group. I never once made a post, and I commented a grand total of 12 times. So I find it strange that Greg associates me with the group. I hope he doesn’t think I am vitriolic.

Crucifixion of the Warrior GodHe probably associates me with the group because someone in the group created a post which contained my review of Greg’s book. They pulled the review from my site at RedeemingGod.com, which can be found here. I reviewed the follow-up summary volume, Cross Vision here.

Anyway, it’s not a big deal, but I was surprised at the conference (and here again) that I am associated with a Facebook group in which I had almost no involvement. Still, it’s a great group, and if you want to discuss the themes of Greg’s book, or non-violence in general, you can go request to join the group here. If you join, just don’t be vitriolic! Ha!

The central thesis of Jeremy’s work is that “the blood of Jesus” is the solution to the problem of sin not because it placates the Father’s wrath or somehow magically washes away our sin, but because Jesus’ death on the cross exposes the true nature of sin and calls us to live free from it. But before we can understand, let alone critique, Jeremy’s thesis, we need to know something about René Girard (1923-2015), a French historian and philosopher of social science whose work has proven increasingly influential in Western theological circles over the last several decades. The reason we need to first understand Girard is because Jeremy’s thesis is heavily reliant on the work of Girard.

I don’t know if “heavily reliant” is the right term. As any honest theologian will admit, my ideas are built on the shoulders of numerous scholars and authors who have influenced my thinking over my years of study and research. So, for example, at various places in the book, I give credit to Fleming Rutledge, John Sailhamer, Mark Biddle, and several others.

Furthermore, while Girardian thought did indeed influence my thinking on some areas, it is not actually his books that influenced me most, but the books of several other Girardian scholars, such as Mark Heim, Robert Hamerton-Kelly, and Gil Bailie. But regardless, I fully admit that Girardian insights into anthropology and sociology have influenced my thinking about life and Scripture, as have the views of Greg Boyd, C. S. Lewis, N. T. Wright, Sharon Baker, Robert Farrar Capon, Zane Hodges, Brian Zahnd, Brad Jersak, and numerous others. (Reading these people’s books will transform your life and theology!)

As Jeremy makes clear in his book (155-64), the core of Girard’s theory is that humans are by nature imitators. We thus find ourselves desiring what others desire, which leads to rivalry and, inevitably, to violence. Since everybody is subject to this process, all social groups would eventually descent into total anarchy were there not some mechanism for channeling our violence away from the group toward another. Girard argues that throughout history social groups have survived by placing the blame for the group’s inner conflict on a “scapegoat,” which typically is a person or group that is vulnerable and “different” from the majority within the group (164).

The inner conflicts of the group are overcome as they unite against this common enemy and punish them for their alleged crimes, usually by killing them. What they are actually doing, however, is projecting their own guilt onto this scapegoat and punishing this scapegoat as a means of saving themselves. One dies so that the others may live. This scapegoating process, argues Girard, is most frequently justified by claiming it reflects God’s (or a god’s) will, and the fact that the death of the scapegoat succeeds in temporarily restoring peace to the group is interpreted as a confirmation this conviction.

Jeremy shows how imitative (or mimetic) rivalry led to the first act of violence recorded in the Bible, when Cain killed Able (Gen 4). Jeremy finds it highly significant that this episode also happens to contain the first mention of “sin” in the Bible (42). For this and other reasons, Jeremy argues that mimetic rivalry and the violence and scapegoating that follows it is the “foundational sin” of the Bible (217), and it expresses the essence of sin throughout Scripture. Indeed, Jeremy claims that “[e]verything in Scripture is focused on revealing this one truth to us,” namely, that throughout history humans have “engaged in rivalry, accusation, and violence” (119, cf. 152, 179). In Jeremy’s view,

“This is why the Bible contains more violence than any other ancient religious text. The Bible places so much emphasis on war, violence, bloodshed, and sacrifice because God wants to reveal the true source of violence and sacrifice, and in so doing, put a stop to it. The Bible emphasizes sacred violence, not because God is violent, but because we are” (121).

As is true for Girard, Jeremy holds that Jesus is God’s solution to this foundational sin. God became a human and died as an innocent scapegoat on the cross to expose the lie that our scapegoating reflects God’s will. “He died to take away and bring an end to sacrifice…by revealing through His own sacrifice at the hands of men that God does not want sacrifice; we do” (151). Since “the sin of scapegoating is the primary sin of humanity since the foundation of the world…the primary task of Jesus [is] to deliver us from our slavery to this sin by both exposing it to us and showing us how to live differently” (197). Hence, Jeremy argues, Jesus “is the perfect revelation about the truth of scapegoating” (173).

Overall, this is not a bad summary … of about one-fifth of the book. The two chapters on scapegoating in the book are heavily dependent upon the six chapters about sin, law, and sacrifice, which are barely mentioned above. But as I well know, a book review cannot include every detail lest it become a book itself.

However, I feel that most of Greg’s criticisms below could have been avoided if the 40 pages he summarizes above were read in light of the other 220 pages.

There is a great deal to praise about this insightful work. The conviction that God’s nature is love and, therefore, that God is opposed to all forms of violence is beautifully expressed throughout this work. Related to this, Jeremy insightfully expresses the understanding that Scripture’s violent portraits of God are the result of people projecting their own sin (including their fallen conceptions of God) onto God. In the process of making a scapegoat out of others, he argues, we make scapegoat out of God, and God, in his patient love, allows us do it. Readers of my CWG and/or Cross Vision (CV) will have no trouble understanding why I appreciate these views of Jeremy.

On top of this, Jeremy does an excellent job showing how the cross exposes the sin of scapegoating and how it calls us to an altogether different way of resolving conflict, namely, forgiveness. Moreover, his several discussions of the law and sacrificial system as divine accommodations to the fallen state of God’s people were astute, as were his many trenchant critiques of the Penal Substitution model of the Atonement that run throughout this work. I also think most readers will be aided by Jeremy’s discussion of two different kinds of forgiveness in the New Testament (231-32) as well as by his discussion of Hebrews 9:22 (244-47), which has wreaked so much havoc with atonement theories, to be informative and helpful.

Particularly helpful to me was Jeremy’s argument that the reference to “the lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8) “reveals that this is the way God has always been. He has always been an innocent Lamb who allows Himself to get slain for the sake of others” (203). I find this interpretation to be compelling, no doubt in part because it provides solid support for my claim (defended in CWG and CV) that God has always stooped to bear the sin of people, thereby taking on an ugly appearance in the biblical narrative that reflects that sin, just as he does on the cross. And finally, readers of Nothing But the Blood of Jesus will find they are given a clearer understand of what “the blood of Jesus” actually means – and, just as importantly, what it does not mean. For these and a multitude of other reasons, I recommend reading Nothing But the Blood of Jesus.

Thank you for the kind words, Greg! Now, let’s dive into the disagreements!

Of course, this is not to say the book is not without its shortcomings or that I agree with everything in it. Truth is, I consider several of our differences to be rather stark and quite important. Nevertheless, given our core agreement on God’s loving, non-violent nature and on the correct non-violent way to interpret Scripture’s violent portraits of God, my critiques should be understood along the lines of a friendly “in-house” debate. I’ll make two critical comments concerning the style of Jeremy’s work and four critical comments concerning its content.

First, while Jeremy has a very readable writing style, this book is frankly quite repetitive. Part of this is inevitable given that the book is organized around a discussion of five words (“Sin,” “Law,” “Sacrifice,” “Scapegoat,” and “Blood”) and, as Jeremy himself acknowledges, the meaning of each one is wrapped up with all the others. But much of the repetition is unnecessary. Repetitions are not only found throughout the book, but often in a single paragraph. To pick out one random example, Jeremy at one point says that Jesus

“…was innocent of all wrongdoing. Even though most scapegoats are guilty of some of the things for which they are accused, Jesus was completely innocent….Though the best scapegoat is a guilty scapegoat, the perfect innocence of Jesus reveals that scapegoats are typically not guilty of everything for which they are accused….Though Jesus did serve in the function of a scapegoat, He is not called a scapegoat because He could not justifiably be accused of any wrongdoing. Jesus was a scapegoat, but He was an innocent scapegoat.”

To this, I say, “Guilty as charged.”

I am intentionally repetitive, because I seek to explain new concepts to people in different ways using different words so that they understand what I am (and am not) saying. Only professional theologians and scholars are likely to quickly grasp the nuances of a particular statement, and so I hope that by stating the same idea in different ways, the point becomes clear.

On the other hand, maybe this is just a fault of all theology books. I personally found CWG to be quite repetitive, including numerous sections (even entire chapters) that could have been cut from the book without any detriment to the overall argument.

So could the book have been more succinct? Of course. Should it have been shorter? Maybe. Will the point of the book have been as clear with these subtractions? It all depends on who you ask.

I think an editor’s razor could have tightened up this paragraph as well as the entire book.

I paid for editorial services on this book. But again, this is a subjective criticism that I am not certain all share with Greg.

Second, and more significantly, with only a couple of exceptions, Jeremy doesn’t cite his sources. Now, this book is intended for a popular audience, so heavy footnoting is not to be expected. But even in popular works it’s customary for authors to cite sources from which they got their information and/or ideas. The most glaring example of this is that, even though Jeremy’s work is thoroughly indebted to Girard, he never once mentions him or cites any of his works. I am certain this is not intentional on Jeremy’s part, and it likely wouldn’t bother most lay readers. But protecting “intellectual property” is a huge deal among academics, and this omission would cause suspicion. Citation of sources would also help readers check out some of Jeremy’s more controversial claims and engage in further reading instead of just take his word for it.

I take great effort and care to cite my sources. I always cite a source when I know I am referring to them. I never cited Girard because although some ideas in my book are “Girardian” I have not found his books to be all that helpful for understanding his theory. Sorry, René!

Maybe a quick summary of my approach to writing will help shed light on the lack of footnotes. When I want to study a topic, I buy and read every book I can think of on the subject. Then to solidify the ideas in my own mind, I sort through the ideas and arrange them in a logical order (at least to me). Then I write it all down. I rarely go back to look at the books I read. I say this with apologies to all the authors I have read that didn’t get mentioned in the book. I know it is a weakness to my writing approach … especially with this book.

Probably what I should have done (and will do in future editions) is include a list of suggested resources at the end of the book. This list would have begun with a statement that the following books were highly influential in helping shape my views and ideas in the book.

Part of problem with this book in particular, however, is that I never planned to write it. During my reading and research on the problem of divine violence in Scripture, I planned to write a book titled When God Pled Guilty. Currently, that book sits on my computer hard drive at 200,000 words with several hundred footnotes. I shelved that book about five years ago to write a different book, which became seven books, which I am now in the process of writing. I never planned to write Nothing but the Blood of Jesus.

But one night, in my weekly discipleship group study, as I was explaining some of the content from one of those seven forthcoming volumes, the outline for Nothing but the Blood of Jesus popped into my head, and I knew I had to write it. So I did. It took a couple weeks of frantic writing, pouring out the “fire in my bones” onto the written page, but the entire book was written in a very short span of time. This accounts for most of the lack of footnotes in the volume. But ample citations are in the original volumes, which will be published (hopefully) in the next several years.

Nevertheless, numerous citations do not prove the accuracy of an argument. Anybody can quote dozens of sources, just as anybody can quote dozens of verses. Arguments must be dealt with on their internal logical and merit, and nothing else.

My approach to writing also suffers from one other drawback. Unlike Greg (and most other scholarly authors), I don’t have a team of research assistants to help me track down resources. I don’t have a Paul Eddy. I don’t have any grad students. It’s just me. And while I do try my absolute hardest to give credit where credit is due, I often forget where an idea might have come from, and so fail to provide a citation.

However (and this is not an excuse), all authors neglect to cite sources … even Greg. What I find most interesting about Greg’s critique on this point is that although he himself included hundreds of footnotes in his book, he did not include various resources which he himself had referred to elsewhere in his writings as helpful. For example, Greg wrote on his blog that he had enjoyed reading the insights of Marilyn Campbell’s book, Shedding Light on the Dark Side of God (which is now titled Light Through Darkness).

Yet Greg never once cites Marilyn in his book. Does this mean he didn’t learn anything from her after all? Or maybe Greg doesn’t feel that he needs to cite self-published authors? Is it because she’s a woman or doesn’t have a Ph. D.? I know enough about Greg to know that none of these suggestions are remotely possible. The truth is that no author can ever adequately cite every source and resource to which they are accountable. We try as best we can, but we always fail.

Oh, and as for my more my “more controversial claims,” I take full blame for those. There is no one to cite, because these ideas came from my own research and study of the biblical text in light of the crucified Christ. I hoped that readers would consider the logic and reasonable arguments of my position based on the other ideas presented in the book, and then study them further on their own to see if these things are so.

Once again, Greg himself makes many controversial claims in CWG and CV, many of which have no citations because they originated with Greg. Readers are invited to consider the weight of his arguments and decide for themselves if what he says makes sense.

But we better move on. This is too long of an explanation about citations and footnotes.

Turning to the content of this work, my first and most substantial comment concerns the Girardian framework Jeremy uses to interpret Scripture. I confess that I am always suspicious whenever anyone tries to interpret the Bible through the lens of an extra-biblical idea, philosophy, or theory. So when Jeremy claimed that “[a]lmost every passage in the Bible teaches the truth about scapegoating in one fashion or another”(179) and that “[e]verything in Scripture is focused on revealing [that] [f]rom the beginning…humans have engaged in rivalry, accusation, and violence” (119), I was immediately concerned that everything in the Bible was being forced into the Procrustean bed of Girardian theory.

It is strange that Greg seems to be unaware of his own Procrustean bed which forms the foundation of his own thinking and theology. Or maybe he is, and he just wants to point out mine? I hope Greg doesn’t make the mistake of thinking that he has a purely exegetical theology. Every theological position is influenced by history, culture, education, family, emotional state, psychological background, traditional practices, and a vast constellation of other factors.

I am happy to do my best to own up to mine and agree that mimetic theory has been influential in my thinking and writing. However, if Greg does not like the Girardian framework, that is completely fine, but he must show why it is faulty before telling me I depend on it too much. Also, Greg must also admit that he himself interprets the bible through the lens of extra-biblical ideas. It is better by far to know what forms the foundation of your thinking than to be ignorant of such presuppositions or to claim you are not subject to them. I admit and am aware of being influenced by Girardian thought. If Greg wants to disabuse me of it, he should disprove it rather than simply point it out.

There were points in this work that I saw this happening. For example, we’ve seen that Jeremy regards scapegoating as the “foundational sin” of Scripture, and he makes quite a big deal over the fact that “sin” is first mentioned when Cain kills Abel. But it seems to me that the “foundational sin” in Scripture takes place prior to this, when Adam and Eve believe the serpent’s lie about God and when they therefore proceed to violate the divine prohibition against eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 3:1-5). This sin certainly leads to Adam blaming God and Eve while Eve in turn blames the serpent (Gen 3:12-13), and one could argue that this indicates they are heading down the Girardian path of violence and scapegoating. But the foundational sin that sets this process in motion is mistrusting God and trying to be wise like God, not violence.

I don’t know that this is a Girardian idea. Yes, Girard says that there is a founding murder at the root of all civilization, and he does indeed point to Cain and Abel as a founding murder, but does he ever equate this with sin? I do not recall if he does. I think that this might be one of my more controversial claims in the book, for which I take full blame (or credit, as the case may be).

However, here again, if Greg disagrees, then I invite him to present exegetical arguments to the contrary. Just because traditional theology assumes that “sin” occurred when Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree, this does not mean that traditional theology is correct. The Bible doesn’t define their actions as sin, and so why should we? And yes, I discuss Romans 5:12 in the book.

So once again, if Boyd doesn’t like Girard, that’s fine. But rather than discount an idea because of its origin, ideas must be dealt with on their own terms, regardless of who else believes them.

Similarly, throughout this work Jeremy virtually equates sin with violence and/or scapegoating (e.g. 52, 204, 222, 250). It seems to me, however, that the biblical conception of sin is a good bit broader than this, the above-mentioned sin of Adam and Eve being a case in point. Jeremy several times says that sin is anything that makes us less human, which I fully agree with. But it seems to me that there are many things other than violence that can do this. If a person is a chronically lazy glutton, for example, this is sin (Tit 1:11-13), and I am certain it is so because this person is not living up to their human potential. Yet I don’t see how laziness fits into the Girardian schemata of sin.

Again, I don’t exactly know how Girard defines sin. I take blame for this definition. Well, Mark Biddle’s book on sin was helpful as well. But not Girard, if I recall correctly.

Anyway, while I admit that my definition of sin is new to some, it must be considered on its merit, and on the revelation from Scripture. “Sin” is not necessarily “the bad things we do” as Greg seems to believe. (I don’t actually know what he believes. How does he define “sin”?) While the passage he quoted, Titus 1:11-13, does mention lying and lazy gluttons, it doesn’t mention sin. So I am unsure why he cited that text as a way to disprove what I argue about sin in the book. Similarly, Greg eisegetically reads the concept of “sin” into Genesis 3. It is not found there exegetically

Most of the time, in Scripture, when “sin” is explicitly mentioned, it is usually mentioned in the context of violence, or the types of actions that lead to violence (e.g., rivalry, blame, accusation, etc.).

Another example where I felt Jeremy’s Girardian framework was distorting Scripture was when he claimed that “the main point”’ of the book of Job “is that we humans often engage in the satanic activity of accusing and blaming others and that we do so ‘in the name of God’”(197). While I grant that this is one of the points of Job, I am quite certain it is not the main point.

Consider the fact that Job blames God just as much as Job’s “friends” blame Job, which is why God has to put Job in his place in the three chapter monologue toward the end of the book (chs 38-41). And in this case, Job is not projecting his guilt onto God. Indeed, the main point of the book of Job hinges on the fact that Job is suffering as an innocent man (Job 1:1-5, 8). Job’s blaming God for his troubles thus has nothing to do with mimetic rivalry or violence. As God points out, it rather has to do with Job’s complete ignorance of the unfathomable cosmos (chs.38-39) and of the forces of chaos (Behemoth, Leviathan) that God must contend with (chs.40-41). I would thus argue that the main point of the book of Job is that humans shouldn’t blame God for our misfortunes, because we don’t know much about anything (which, by the way, is illustrated by the fact that neither Job nor his “friends” ever learn about the random wager in the heavenly realms that led to Job’s sufferings). But if one is reading with Girardian glasses, one is going to miss this because it doesn’t fit into the Girardian framework.

I must confess that I am a little confused by Greg’s objection here. Greg agrees that Job blames God for what happened to him. And what happened to Job? A lot of violence. His crops were destroyed, his servants and children were killed, and Job suffered great sickness. And then Job blames God for all this violence. Since this is so, how can Greg then say that “Job’s blaming God for his trouble has nothing to do with … violence”? It has everything to do with violence. Then when God shows up, He tells Job He had nothing to do with it.

Job's Friends in a Crisis“But” (as my wife pointed out to me once), “What about God’s deal with the devil at the beginning of the book? Didn’t God allow Satan to do all these bad things to Job? How is this not divine violence?” Excellent point, Wendy! My answer is that this proves that the book of Job is actually about the satanic activity of accusing and blaming others in the name of God. Satan is there in the beginning as the accuser, and the satanic presence is seen throughout the book as everyone is accusing Job, and Job is accusing God.

Yes, Job and his friends never learn about this divine “wager.” But this is because the story is not for them, but for us. As a result, it is my belief is that the “divine wager” never actually happened. I believe the story of Job actually happened, but I do not believe that God makes deals with the devil which treats humans as “acceptable losses” in a cosmic game of “chicken.” The account of God’s deal with the devil at the beginning is the narrative framework that sets up the scene, and is then disavowed at the end of the story. In other words, Job 1 is the “human perspective” of what we humans think goes on in the heavens, and Job 38-41 is “God’s perspective” of what is actually happening.

A more detailed explanation will have to wait for a future book. The point is that in the book of Job, “there is something else going on” than what most people assume.

As a final example, Jeremy argues, in good Girardian fashion, that Achan and his family were scapegoated when they were burned alive (Josh 7:10-16). Now, the text says that this burning was commanded by Yahweh because Achan kept spoils when the Israelites vanquished the city of Ai. From a Girardian perspective, however, this killing must have been carried out to resolve some social conflict that had been building up. Jeremy thus argues that there was “rivalry among the people of Israel regarding the leadership of Joshua and the divisions of the land in Canaan,” and the slaughter of Achan and his family was carried out to resolve this rivalry (192).

The trouble is, there is no evidence of such a “rivalry” in this passage. So far as I can see, it is postulated only because Girardian theory requires it. Yet, Jeremy is so convinced of its truth that he claims that this is “the most obvious reading” (194) of this passage. Indeed, he argues that the whole “book of Joshua, like much of the Bible, is written to expose such thinking (viz. scapegoating) for the lie that it is” (195). I grant that some stories in Joshua and throughout the Old Testament can be interpreted as illustrations of Girard’s scapegoating process, but to claim this for the book as a whole is a bit much. But Jeremy goes so far as to suggest that this is what the original ancient author(s) of this book had in mind! To me, this simply reflects how thoroughly Jeremy’s reading of Scripture has been fused with his Girardian perspective.

Let me beat the same drum once again … I didn’t get this from Girard, or from any Girardian scholar that I recall. But I suppose it is true that a Girardian framework influenced my explanation of this passage. Regardless, the steps to reduce rivalry are quite obvious in Joshua 2–5, especially when compared to the problems Moses faced in his leadership of Israel. This is the point I make in the book. The opening chapters of Joshua must be read contextually, in light of the exodus and wilderness wanderings.

However, all of this is only prologue for the Achan story. I should have more clearly made this point about “prologue” in the book. Regardless, I nowhere suggested, as Greg implies, that the original author(s) of Joshua had Girardian theory in mind. Pardon me, but that’s preposterous. What I wrote is that that the book of Joshua, like much of the Bible, is written to expose the lie of human scapegoating.

Scapegoating is a biblical theme long before Girard picked it up.

To me, Greg’s comment simply reflects how little he understands the seriousness of scapegoating, or its universal pull on every human being. To Greg, and everyone else, I say, “Forget Girard, if you want. Let’s talk about scapegoating.”

My second critical comment about the content of Nothing But the Blood of Jesus is that, while Jeremy mentions Satan several times, neither Satan nor any other demonic cosmic agent plays a substantive role in his theorizing. I think his book suffers as a result. For example, Jeremy notes that, like so many today, biblical authors routinely blamed God for natural disasters. Since we know from the revelation of God in Christ that God is not behind violence, Jeremy argues that we should understand the violent portraits of God that include natural disasters to be projections of the biblical authors.

I completely agree, but in CWG and CV, I go further and argue, on the basis of the cross, that whenever the violence involved in a divine judgment cannot be attributed to humans, as is the case when the judgment takes the form of a natural disaster, we should attribute this violence to Satan and/or other demonic cosmic forces. Because Satan and demonic cosmic forces play no role in Girardian theory, however, Jeremy doesn’t take this option. As a result, he leaves the natural disasters that function as divine judgments completely unexplained.

For example, who or what caused the Flood (Gen 6-9)? While Jeremy is clear that it wasn’t God, he offers his readers no other alternative. He comes close to providing an answer when he notes that the violence involved in the Flood is attributed to the flood waters, not to God (184). But he fails to identify these flood waters as the Ancient Near Eastern way of referring to hostile cosmic forces that perpetually threaten the earth and that Yahweh (or, in other cultures, some other deity) must hold at bay. The result is that the undoing of creation that took place with the Flood is left unexplained.

And the same holds true for all other judgments of God in the Old Testament that involve violence that can’t be attributed to humans. By contrast, if we read Scripture through the lens of the cross, which is depicted in the New Testament as God’s culminating battle with the kingdom of darkness, then we will intentionally look for – and we in fact find – that demonic cosmic forces were at work in bringing about these sorts of judgments.

the flood and total depravityI had a very similar conversation with Greg at the ReKnew conference, in which he stated that he also leaves natural disasters completely unexplained. He says, and I agree, that there are too many variables to determine the cause of any natural disaster. The only exception, Greg says, are the natural disasters found in the Bible. The Bible claims that these (in some way) came from God, and so therefore, they did. Call it Satan, the destroyer, or God withdrawing, these, and only these, natural disasters have some sort of divine origin. For many reasons, I find this explanation highly troubling, and extremely unhelpful. After all, if the CWG thesis helps us understand the Bible but not life, then it is not helpful and cannot be accepted.

But I am not writing this post to critique Greg’s views (though a few more will come below). I just want to point out that while it is true that I do not talk about satan or natural disasters much in my book, this is not because I don’t have a view on them. I do. But my book was primarily focused on human sin and what Jesus did to fix it. I am not prepared, as Greg seems to be, to say that natural disasters are sometimes the result of human sin. One of the primary things we learn from Jesus is that we need to stop blaming God (and humans) for the bad things that happen in this life. This includes natural disasters.

If this is true now (as I think Greg would agree), then it also includes historical natural disasters, including those found in the Bible. The biblical accounts of natural disasters, then, are revelatory, just like much of the rest of Scripture, about how we humans blame God for violence, whether it is our own sinful violence or natural violence. A more detailed explanation is forthcoming in a future book.

This then also helps us understand satan and the cosmic powers. I am not going to get into it here, but just as Greg thinks I have too weak a view of satan and demonic cosmic forces, I think he gives them way too much “personhood.” I heard Greg’s defense of his views at the conference. I have also read God at War and Satan and the Problem of Evil, and highly recommend both books. I completely agree that satan and the fallen powers threaten the world and the existence of humanity. But I have a completely different view than Greg does of what satan and the demonic forces are, where they came from, and how they interact with humans. And no, I didn’t get any of my views from Girard. Ha!

Yet, an even more fundamental problem with Jeremy’s book is that his way of interpreting Scripture has no room for the concept of God judging people, and this is my third critical comment. At a number of points in this book Jeremy says things like: “God doesn’t punish us for sin.” Rather, “Sin carries its own punishment” and God “works to rescue us from the punishment of sin” (51). Now, I fully agree that “sin carries its own punishment” and that God “works to rescue us from the punishment of sin,” but from this it doesn’t follow that “God doesn’t punish us for sin.” For as I argue in CWG and CV, when God sees that his merciful work to protect us from the natural consequences of our sin is harming us by allowing us to get further entrenched in our sin, God has no other choice but to withdraw this protection and allow us to suffer the destructive consequences of our sin. And this, I contend, is supremely illustrated when Jesus stood in our place as a condemned sinner on the cross. The Father withdrew his protection of Jesus and delivered him over to violent people, and Jesus experienced the God-forsakenness that is intrinsic to all sin.

I believe, which I thought I stated in the book, that we see God’s judgment of sin, death, and satan in the crucifixion Jesus. There are future judgments as well. But in all cases, these judgments are not God negatively punishing anybody for sin. Instead, the judgments of God are when God acts as judge to pronounce right judgments. That is, He names things as they really are. He exposes false testimony so that He might instead reveal the truth. Again, this is not from Girard, and a more detailed explanation will be provided in future volumes, though I believe I wrote some preliminary ideas about this in my book The Atonement of God.

As for this entire idea of God withdrawing from people when sin gets bad enough so that God lets sin, death, the devil, and the destructive cosmic forces have their way with humanity, I cannot object to this view strongly enough. Here is what many people (myself included) hear Greg to be saying about God:

You see? When Greg says that God simply “releases the destroyer” this is similar to Zeus saying “Release the Kraken.” In Greg’s view, God is not sending the destroyer, or even doing the destroying. He is just withdrawing His protective hand which holds the destroyer back. God is releasing the destroyer to let the destroyer do what the destroyer does. I am sorry, but this concept comes straight out of pagan mythology.

Yes, I know this idea is found in various places in Scripture, as laid out in Greg’s books, but Jesus repudiates all these ways of reading such passages when He shows that God will never leave us nor forsake us and will always be with us, no matter what.

If Jesus reveals anything at all to us, it is that God is Immanuel; not Zeus.

In his critique of CWG, Jeremiah [My name is Jeremy! But thanks for equating me with my namesake. ;)] objects to this withdrawal conception of divine judgment, both as applied to the cross and to biblical accounts of divine judgment. But what then are we to do with the vast multitude of passages that depict God bringing judgment on people by withdrawing his protection to turn people over to the destructive consequences of their sin (see CWG,vol II, 767-890)? If the Flood wasn’t a judgment of God, what was it? Just a random and wholly unexplainable disaster? And what could be said about (say) the biblical accounts of the killing of the firstborn in Egypt, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the parting and closing of the Red Sea, or the earth swallowing up the followers of Korah’s rebellion? If God never punishes sin, these biblical judgments become not only unexplainable, but unintelligible. Not only this, but inasmuch as the coherence of the biblical narrative hinges on divine judgments such as these, denying that God ever punishes sin renders the entire Old Testament narrative incoherent.

No, they are not unintelligible at all. Each can be easily understood when we see the glorious revelation of God in Jesus Christ on the cross, and recognize that in these terrifying and violent portrayals of God, “something else is going on.” I actually think Greg would see what this “something else” is if he discarded the “divine withdrawal” element of his cruciform thesis while keeping every other element. When God stays with us like Jesus, rather than releasing the destroyer like Zeus, we are then forced to read all the violent texts of Scripture in light of the crucified Christ, and something beautiful emerges.

If God doesn’t punitively or painfully withdraw from sinners, but sticks with us through the pain of sin, then this requires us to say that “something else is going on” in the passages that seem to indicate that God does withdraw. What is it that is going on? Well, to see it, Greg would have to adopt a little Girardian perspective. (That’s a joke!) No, the truth is that Girard is not needed at all. Jesus reveals quite clearly on the cross what else is going on.

On the other hand, if we set Girardian theory aside and instead allow the cross to serve as the paradigm for how God brings judgments as well as the paradigm for who God battles (viz. Satan and other demonic cosmic forces), then we are able to affirm that, while God is altogether non-violent, God nevertheless had to sometimes allow judgments to come upon people by withdrawing his merciful protection, which sometimes meant that cosmic agents who come “only to kill and to steal and to destroy” (Jn 10:10) were allowed to have their way.

I ache for the people who hear this ideas from Boyd and God sometimes allows judgments to come upon people by withdrawing His merciful protection. I truly do.

It is no good for anyone to hear that “the thief comes to kill, steal, and destroy … but God allows him to come.”

Frankly, most people, myself included, would rather have the pain and punishment come directly from God. If God is going to let satan kill people, God should have the respect for humanity to just do it Himself. If Greg’s view of God is correct, then I say this to God, “Hey God, man up. Don’t send a hit man to do your dirty work.”

There is no real logical difference at all between God allowing a disaster to fall upon someone (however regretfully He might allow it) and just performing the disaster Himself. So in Greg’s view, God is simply allowing satan to do God’s dirty work so that God can have someone to blame. “It wasn’t me!” says God. “It was Satan!” Meanwhile, God is the one who let Satan do the killing and destroying. God “Released the kraken.” I find it odd that in Greg’s view, God is using satan as the ultimate scapegoat, and yet Greg then turns around and says that my view overemphasizes the scapegoat theme.

The cross of Jesus reveals that God does not scapegoat satan, but it is satan that scapegoats God, and we humans follow satan in these accusatory ways.

My fourth and final comment is that, because Satan plays no substantive role in Jeremy’s Girardian understanding of the cross, his understanding of what the cross accomplishes is inadequate. I completely agree with Jeremy (and Girard) that the cross exposes the sinfulness of our scapegoating tendencies – especially our fallen inclination to scapegoat God. As I argue in CWG, this is why God mirrored the ugliness of sin as a victim of violence when he stooped to bear our sin on the cross, in contrast to the sin-mirroring violent portraits of God as a propagator of violence in the OT. But if we stop here, we are left with a cross that is merely pedagogical and ethical in nature. The cross instructs us, but it doesn’t change anything about the reality of the human situation. To use traditional terminology, this understanding of the cross results in a subjective, but not an objective, understanding of the Atonement.

Honestly, the biblical concept of satan is everywhere in my book, as I just hinted at above. Since “satan” means “accuser” every time I talk about accusation, this can be understood as a reference to satan. Therefore, what Jesus did on the cross is the greatest, objective, universal defeat of satan that can ever be imagined.

In the view Greg presents in his books, satan might be “defeated” but he is still very much active and powerful so as to make no real difference in the world. Theoretically, in Greg’s view, God still occasionally unleashes satan to have his way with us.

But in my view, satan truly was defeated — objectively defeated for all humanity — and evidence of this defeat is found everywhere in life, culture, politics, art, music, movies, and every other sphere of life. The death of Jesus on the cross wasn’t just the death of the son of God, so that He accomplished something mystical in the spiritual realm which no one can see or understand. Instead, the death of Jesus turned the world upside down, and the furniture is still all tumbling to the ground.

Satan was defeated by Jesus on the cross, so that the accuser has no more power.

The core problem is that, in Jeremy’s view, Jesus came because we were merely “in bondage to sin” (248), whereas the New Testament goes further and depicts us as also being in bondage to Satan. In fact, “[t]he Son of God was revealed for this purpose,” John says, “to destroy the works of the devil” (I Jn 3:8). So too, the author of Hebrews tells us that the reason the Son became incarnate and died was, “so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb 2:14, cf. Col 2:15). On the cross, God solved a cosmic problem (defeating the kingdom of darkness) so that he could solve the anthropological problem (free us from our bondage to sin and Satan). And it is only because God did the first that he could do the second.

This is only a core problem for those who do not understand what I argued in the rest of book. Well, and maybe also what I wrote in my previous volume, The Atonement of God. … (Which, by the way, was dedicated to René Girard. Ha! So Greg probably wouldn’t like that book either.)

Jesus on the cross - YeshuaAnyway, the death of Jesus is the center of Scripture and theology, and I base everything I think and teach on what Jesus accomplished on the cross. Or at least, I try to. I believe every word of Scripture; I just believe some of these words differently than Greg does. This doesn’t mean I’m wrong, or that he is. It just means there is room for further discussion and humble learning. If Greg decides to continue this conversation, I promise not to mention Girard.

Not only this, but because of the cross, we have been transported from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God’s Son (Col 1:13). Moreover, because of the cross, we are placed in Christ Jesus in heavenly realms, “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion” (Eph 1:21). Here we are “blessed with every spiritual blessing” as we share in the life and love of the Triune God (Eph 1:3). So while I agree with Jeremy that the cross isn’t what allowed God to love and forgive us, as the Penal Substitution view holds, I nevertheless believe the cross did much more than expose the lie of our scapegoating and point us in a new direction. It radically altered our situation.

I agree (numerous Bible references go here [also a joke!]). I believe that while the cross did expose the lie of scapegoating and point humanity in a new direction, the crucifixion also radically altered our situation, and this changed situation is evident everywhere in life. I thought I made this clear in the book, but again, it is also made clear in The Atonement of God.

In sum, Nothing But the Blood of Jesus is filled with insights that make it well worth reading. But I would encourage my friend to loosen his commitment to Girardian theory and to instead anchor his reading of Scripture in the crucified Christ. This would allow him to have a more robust understanding of what the cross accomplished and would allow him to affirm God’s judgments in Scripture, but in a way that points to the supreme revelation of God’s self-sacrificial, enemy-embracing, non-violent love on Calvary.

This is interesting.

Earlier Greg stated that he wanted me to cite my sources as evidence for how I relied upon other scholars and theologians. But now I see that he does not want me to depend on human sources, but instead look only to Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Which is it?

Maybe we could say the great flaw with Greg’s CWG is due to his over-dependence on the wisdom of men (as evidenced by the numerous footnotes), and not enough on the cross of Christ, as I sought to do with my book.

I am being facetious, but I think you get the point. It is simply silly to say that because I talk about themes that come from Girard, this means that I don’t anchor my reading of Scripture in the crucified Christ.

I could ignorantly say the same thing about Greg’s heavy reliance upon Origen, or various scholars who hold to the Theological Interpretation of Scripture. But I don’t do this. I know that Greg depends and relies on the best research and scholarly input he can find to help inform, guide, and support the exegetical evidence and ideas he has gleaned from Scripture as he reads and studies the Bible in light of Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

I do the exact same thing. I hope that Greg can assume for my writing what he wants others to assume for his.

In the end, it has been a pleasure reading and interacting with Greg’s books, and it appears he would say the same for mine. Most of all, I appreciate him taking the time to respond to some of the ideas in my books, and I hope that we will be able to continue this conversation in the future as we both seek to live, write, and teach in light of Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Do you want to weigh in on this discussion?

If you haven’t done so already, I invite you to get our books, read them, and then provide your own feedback as well! Click the images of the books below to learn more about each on Amazon and buy your copies.

God is Redeeming Books Bible & Theology Topics: blood of Jesus, book reviews, Books by Jeremy Myers, Books I'm Writing, cross, crucifixion of Jesus, crucivision, Greg Boyd, mimesis, mimetic rivalry, mimetic theory, Nothing But the Blood of Jesus, Rene Girard, scapegoat

Advertisement

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »
Join the discipleship group
Learn about the gospel and how to share it

Take my new course:

The Gospel According to Scripture
Best Books Every Christian Should Read
Study Scripture with me
Subscribe to my Podcast on iTunes
Subscribe to my Podcast on Amazon

Do you like my blog?
Try one of my books:

Click the image below to see what books are available.

Books by Jeremy Myers

Take Online Courses
with N. T. Wright

Choose from Six Courses:
*N. T. Wright on Jesus
*N. T. Wright on Romans
*N. T. Wright on Galatians
*N. T. Wright on Philippians
*N. T. Wright on the Gospel
*N. T. Wright on Worldviews

Theological Study Archives

  • Theology – General
  • Theology Introduction
  • Theology of the Bible
  • Theology of God
  • Theology of Man
  • Theology of Sin
  • Theology of Jesus
  • Theology of Salvation
  • Theology of the Holy Spirit
  • Theology of the Church
  • Theology of Angels
  • Theology of the End Times
  • Theology Q&A

Bible Study Archives

  • Bible Studies on Genesis
  • Bible Studies on Esther
  • Bible Studies on Psalms
  • Bible Studies on Jonah
  • Bible Studies on Matthew
  • Bible Studies on Luke
  • Bible Studies on Romans
  • Bible Studies on Ephesians
  • Miscellaneous Bible Studies

Advertise or Donate

  • Advertise on RedeemingGod.com
  • Donate to Jeremy Myers

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!

© 2023 Redeeming God · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Knownhost and the Genesis Framework