Atonement - Tumblr Posts

Christ's Atonement and the Rapture Found in the Dead Sea Scrolls

By Goodreads Author Eli of Kittim

The extant texts found at Qumran in the 1940s and '50s bear further revelations in regard to the coming of a rejected Messiah. As we reexamine these timeless manuscripts, we will focus our attention exclusively on the so-called 4Q541 Fragment. This text contains many eschatological themes often found in the New Testament, such as the rejection and suffering of a messianic figure, his atonement for the people of his generation, the rapture of the faithful, a thematic equivalent to the wrath of the Lamb, the end of all evil, and possibly the Messiah’s resurrection from the dead. The translation is derived from The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered by Robert H. Eisenman and Michael Owen Wise (1992, Element Books).

Based on the linguistic and thematic material, the context of the 4Q541 Fragment is indisputably eschatological, that is to say, concerned with the final events of human history. We should also point out that there is a thematic consistency with regard to the use of the pronoun "he," which is scattered throughout the text, so that the identity of this person remains uniform. So, let's examine the text. In column 4, fragment 3, it is said that “The fire shall be kindled in all the corners of the earth."  As a textual comparison, the Bible says: “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare" (2 Peter 3:10). Column 4, fragment 3 reads: "Upon the darkness it will shine," meaning the "light" of God. It is reminiscent of John 1:5, which refers to the coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, as the light of God: "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." In fact, in Column 4, fragments 3 and 4 seem to suggest that the timeline of this event is set for the end of human history, when all evil will be banished from the earth: “Upon the Darkness it will shine. Then the Darkness will pass away (4) [from] the earth and the deep Darkness from the dry land." This future time period, characterized by peace on earth, is mentioned numerous times in the Bible. The prophet Isaiah refers to it thusly:

"They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore" (2:4).

The idea that "the darkness will pass away (4) [from] the earth" at the end of days, and not before,  is particularly evident in another Dead Sea Scroll,  to wit, the famous War Scroll, otherwise known as 1QM. This text references a great battle that will ensue between the forces of light and those of darkness at the final point of time.

Another indication that the 4Q541 Fragment is referring to the so-called "last days" can be found in Column 5, Fragment 1. This fragment is obviously referring to the "sons" of God, and  explicitly mentions that "(3) Some of his sons shall walk... (4) They shall be gathered to the Heav[enly Beings]..." The thematic and linguistic correspondence between this fragment and certain New Testament passages regarding the "rapture" of the faithful is unmistakable! By comparison, the New Testament uses the exact same word "gathered" to suggest the "rapture" (i.e., the ascension of physical beings into heaven): “Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him ..." (2 Thess. 2:1). The notion of the rapture, as illustrated in the 4Q541 Fragment, is virtually identical in the New Testament text:

"We who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever" (1 Thess.  4:17).

Thus, physical beings "shall be gathered to the Heav[enly Beings ]..." This idea is echoed in the New Testament:

"In a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality" (1 Cor. 15:52-53).

However,  if in fact the 4Q541 Fragment is referring to the "eschaton" (i.e., the end of human history), does it have anything to say concerning the timeline of the Messiah? The answer is, yes! The context and content of Column 4 are obviously related to the rest of the 4Q541 thematic material, and therefore suggest that the referenced messianic figure is contemporaneous with the "generation" of those who "shall be gathered to the Heav[enly Beings]..." In that regard, Column 4 expounds on the idea of a rejected messianic figure who will make an atonement (i.e., a "sacrifice") for all the people of his generation. However,  mention is made that "He will overthrow his evil generation" and that "there will be [great wrath]." This is reminiscent of "the wrath of the Lamb" at the end of days, referenced in the book of Revelation:

"They called to the mountains and the rocks, 'Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!'" (6:16).

Column 4 goes on to say that "When he arises ... the people will ... be confounded." The question is,  where does he arise from? The text is unclear,  but given that there is a glaring thematic correspondence between the eschatological content and context of the 4Q541 text and that of the Bible, it seems fairly obvious that it is not referring to anything other than a resurrection! Compare Isaiah 2:19:

"Men will go into caves of the rocks And into holes of the ground Before the terror of the LORD And the splendor of His majesty, When He arises to make the earth tremble."

Another biblical translation renders it thusly: “when he rises to terrify the earth" (ESV). This is a conspicuous allusion to the Messiah, whose resurrection signifies the end of all evil and the commencement of Judgment. Let's read what Column 4 actually says:

"(1)... his Wisdom [will be great.] He will make atonement for all the children of his generation. He will be sent to all the sons of (2) his [generation]. His word shall be as the word of Heaven and his teaching shall be according to the will of God. His eternal sun shall burn brilliantly. (3) The fire shall be kindled in all the corners of the earth. Upon the Darkness it will shine. Then the Darkness will pass away (4) [from] the earth and the deep Darkness from the dry land. They will speak many words against him. There will be many (5) [lie]s. They will invent stories about him. They will say shameful things about him. He will overthrow his evil generation (6) and there will be [great wrath]. When he arises there will be Lying and violence, and the people will wander astray [in] his days and be confounded."

There are also other literary considerations concerning the 4Q541 text that were not addressed, such as its thematic correspondence to the portrait of Jesus in the gospels, as can be readily seen in the reference to one who is guiltless, but who nevertheless undergoes scourging and affliction. Column 5 (Fragment 5) says: "(1)... and those who are grieved concerning... (2) your ju[dgment] but you will not be gui[lty]... (3) the scourging of those who afflict you... (4) your complaint (?) will not fail and all... (5) your heart be[fore]... " Mention is also made of  a crucifixion, and a "nail," which are arguably literary references to the crucifixion of Jesus. Column 6 reads:

"(1) God [will set] right error[s]... [He will judge] revealed sins... (2) Investigate and seek and know how Jonah wept. Thus, you shall not destroy the weak by wasting away or by [crucif]ixion... . (3) Let not the nail touch him. Then you shall raise up for your father a name of rejoicing and for all of your brothers a [firm] Foundation. (4)... You shall see and you shall rejoice in the Eternal Light and you will not be one who is hated (of God)."

In summary, the 4Q541 Fragment, like the War Scroll, seems to contain a prophecy of the end of days. Similar to Isaiah Chapter 53, the central theme centers around the idea of a rejected and suffering messianic figure whose teaching will come from heaven, and "according to the will of God. His eternal sun shall burn brilliantly" (Column 4,  fragment 2). Within an eschatological context, it is said that he will make an atonement for all the people of his generation. By comparison, the New Testament says that Jesus will sacrifice himself for humanity's sins "Once in the end of the world": “Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Hebrews 9:26). In addition, the 4Q541 text refers to an end time period when this messianic figure will arise (presumably from the dead), and unleash his wrath,  thereby putting an end to all evil in the world. It also mentions that mortals will be transported to heaven (i.e., "rapture").

In the final analysis, the messianic thematic correspondence between the 4Q541 Fragment and the New Testament is undeniable! What is more, according to the 4Q541 text, the timeline regarding the coming of this Messiah is set for the end of days, when all of this world's darkness will be obliterated, and all evil overthrown.    

What does the Johannine Jesus mean in John 14.3 when he says, “if I go . . . I will come back”?

By Writer Eli Kittim

——-

SBLGNT:

καὶ ἐὰν πορευθῶ καὶ ἑτοιμάσω τόπον ὑμῖν, πάλιν ἔρχομαι καὶ παραλήμψομαι ὑμᾶς πρὸς ἐμαυτόν, ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἦτε (Jn. 14.3).

Translation:

“If I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come back and receive you to Myself, so that where I am you may be also” (HCSB).

——-

Definitions

In John 14.3, one of the meanings of the Greek word πορεύομαι (I go) is “die.” It can also mean “travel,” “journey,” or “go.” It comes from the root word “poros,” which means “passageway.” Thus, the connotation is “to depart.”

——-

Is Jesus a General Contractor Or Does He Mean Something Else?

So the question arises: is Jesus going to Heaven to begin preparation and arrangements for the biggest building projects in Heaven’s history? Is that what he really means? Is he going away in order to supervise large developments that will serve as living quarters for humans who will one day be transported there? Is that what he means? And then he will “come back” thousands of years later when the projects have been completed, for it takes a long time to build such ambitious developments? Is that the proper biblical interpretation of what he means when he says, “I go away and prepare a place for you”?

——-

Old Testament Parallels

First, let’s start with a basic question: how does Jesus “prepare a place” for us? Is it by using lawn mowers, cement, bricks, architectural plans, tractors, and the like? Or is it through other means? Obviously, since Jesus’ teachings are spiritually-based, it would seem pointless to look toward materialistic explanations. Therefore, we must look for parallels and verbal agreements elsewhere in the Bible in order to find out exactly what he means. For example, in Isaiah 14.21, to “Prepare a place” means to prepare a slaughtering place מַטְבֵּ֖חַ (matbeach) in order “to slaughter his children for the sins of their ancestors” (cf. Mt. 23.35 NIV). Therefore, in preparing a place, a slaughter house is indicated. Similarly, within the passion narrative, when the Johannine Jesus uttered these words, we knew exactly where he was going; namely, to his death! According to Christian theology, the atonement, namely, the “cross” or the •slaughterhouse•, prepares a place for us through the forgiveness of sins, so that we might become the sons and daughters of God through the blood of Jesus. So, it turns out that Jesus is not going to Heaven; he’s going to his death!

——-

Jesus Will “Come Back” Not from Heaven But from Death

Second, as already mentioned, in the Greek, the word for “go” (πορευθῶ), in the phrase “if I go,” can mean “to go,” to “journey,” to “die,” or to “depart.” Thus, when the Johannine Jesus says “If I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come back,” is he referring to a second coming that will occur possibly thousands of years later, or does he mean something else? Something, perhaps, related to why he is going away in the first place? Based on the aforementioned exegesis, it seemingly means that he “will come back” from the dead (cf. Heb. 9.26-28). Accordingly, it turns out that in John 14.1-3 Jesus is not talking about going to Heaven and then returning in a second coming thousands of years later. Rather, he’s referring to his sacrificial death, which prepares the way to Heaven for all humanity, after which he soon returns from the dead for the rapture (to “receive you to Myself”) and for our ultimate ascension into Heaven. So, whereas the classic interpretation proposed bizarre and remote gaps in chronology between Jesus’ death and resurrection, as well as His appearance in the sky out of nowhere centuries later, the current interpretation is robust precisely because it follows the biblical jargon closely and understands it to be a natural contemporaneous sequence of events within one single lifetime.

——-

New Testament Parallels

Third, John 14.3 can certainly mean “I go to my death” precisely because a similar phrase (“I’m ready to go” away)——using the exact same Greek word πορεύομαι——is used elsewhere in the New Testament to mean that the person is going “to [his] death”:

SBLGNT

ἕτοιμός εἰμι καὶ εἰς θάνατον πορεύεσθαι (Luke 22:33).

Translation:

“I'm ready to go . . . to death!" (HCSB).

Thus, the translation and exegesis of the Biblical languages from both the Old and New Testaments confirms that Jesus is seemingly predicting his death in John 14.3. Jesus is basically saying, “I prepare a place for you” by dying for you!

——-

Jesus is Not Preparing a House; He’s Preparing an Atonement

Fourth, contextually speaking, even Jn 14.2 (the previous verse) demonstrates that Jesus rejects the notion that his message is about living accommodations. Indeed, he stresses that Heaven already has all the accommodations it needs. If it didn’t, he would have told us. In other words, that’s NOT what he meant, and so he switches gears, so to speak, and ends the verse by saying, “I go to prepare a place for you” (πορεύομαι ἑτοιμάσαι τόπον ὑμῖν):

“In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if not, I would have told you. I am going away to prepare a place for you” (HCSB).

The question is, where does he go? Answer: to his death. He must die first. That’s the clue. That’s where he goes because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9.22 HCSB). And we already know from the gospel narratives precisely where he intends to go, and how the story ends!

——-

Jesus Will “Come Back” For the Resurrection and the Rapture

Fifth, then in v. 3 he says, “If I go . . . I will come back and receive you to Myself, so that where I am you may be also.” That sounds like “rapture” language (cf. 1 Thess. 4.16-17), which resembles the resurrection theme in Heb. 9.28 that closely follows the death motif in Heb. 9.26b. John 14.3 employs the term παραλήμψομαι, which comes from the verb παραλαμβάνω and means “I take”——cf. “taken” [as in the rapture] at Gen. 5.24 & Mt. 24.40-41—-or “I receive.” So, the “come back” motif could certainly imply a •resurrection from the dead.• It is not out of the question precisely because it’s not a “parousia” that the text is referring to but rather a “come back” πάλιν ἔρχομαι (cf. ἐκ δευτέρου “for a second time” rather than παρουσία in Heb. 9.28). Therefore, just as in Luke 22.33 in which the going away (πορεύομαι) is a going forth to one’s death, so the “come back” theme in Jn 14.3 can certainly imply from the grave, from death, that is, to receive us in the “rapture.”

——-

Conclusion: The Events of John 14.3 Obviously Suggest A Futurist Eschatological Model

The logical conclusion of this brief study leads to the final question, namely, if Jesus’ death and resurrection are closely followed by the “rapture,” then how could this contemporaneous sequence of events take place in first century Palestine? It could not! Thus, if the Jesus-saying, “if I go away . . . I will come back” means that Jesus will *come-back-from-the-dead* for the •rapture,• then obviously John 14.3 can only be interpreted through a future eschatological model that would account for the contemporaneity of these events! That’s precisely why Jesus says, “In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me” (Jn 16.16).

The New Testament Epistolary literature certainly supports such a model through numerous references (cf. 1 Jn 2.28; Rev. 12.5; 19.10d NRSV). Due to time constraints, I will confine myself to two examples:

1) “Once in the end of the world hath he [Jesus] appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice [death] of himself” (Heb. 9.26b KJV emphasis added).

2) “He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB emphasis added).

——-

Jesus’ Death: Sacrifice or Suicide?

By Writer Eli Kittim

——-

John 15.13:

“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

But how does one do that voluntarily?

Philosophically speaking, unless God’s Sovereignty somehow orchestrates the events leading up to the death of Jesus, how else could Christ offer his life voluntarily?

——-

Thus, are we talking about a Messianic Sacrifice or a Suicide in the New Testament? There have been numerous academic studies that have addressed this question. The Canonical Epistles exclaim:

“And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma” (Eph. 5.2).

——-

So, the question arises: how exactly has Christ “given himself for us, [as] an offering and a sacrifice to God”?

Bear in mind that the term “sacrifice” has the meaning of a voluntary offering of a life. However, if other people planned and performed the execution of Jesus, then how is his atonement deemed a voluntary sacrifice?

——-

It seems to me that the only possible explanation for a voluntary sacrifice is Suicide: the laying down of one’s own life! In the New Testament gospels, Jesus himself implies that no one else actually kills him but rather that he offers (“takes”) his life voluntarily. Speaking about his life, he declares:

“No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” (Jn 10.18)!

It can be paraphrased as follows: “no one takes my life from me; I take my own life.” Otherwise stated, if others had planned on killing Jesus through coercion, then that type of sacrifice would have occurred in an involuntary manner. Not to mention that others would have taken his life from him. Furthermore, the fact that Jesus foreknew it doesn’t necessarily make it voluntary, nor can it be described as an event that transpired according to his wishes. The fact that he was forced to drink the cup against his wishes demonstrates that even the foreknowledge of this event didn’t make his sacrifice voluntary! So what is it that allows him to lay down his life of his own accord?

——-

Remember the “Temptation of Christ,” which comprised three temptations? One is to gain the whole world and its kingdoms. The second is to satisfy his deepest wishes and desires. But in the third temptation (Lk 4.9-12) Satan tempts Jesus to commit suicide!

——-

If we consider the “typological” relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament, we can see, for example, that Samson may be seen as a “type” of Christ in being a sort of savior and superhuman figure (e.g. the “Annunciation” in Lk 1:26–38 is seemingly modelled on the announcement of Samson’s birth in Judg. 13). The last act of Samson comprises his noble death, one that is positively characterized by martyrdom and Suicide in the Old Testament! The biblical narrator seems to commend Samson’s suicide by emphasizing that God strengthened Samson to carry out this massacre: “So those he killed at his death were more than those he had killed during his life” (Judg. 16.30)! This is a reference to the massacre in which Samson, in an act of revenge, pushed the two “pillars on which the house rested” (Judg. 16.29) on top of the Philistines and cried out: “Let me die with the Philistines” (v. 30). If Samson is a “type” of Christ, then we would expect something analogous taking place in the death of Christ, the “antitype”!

——-

Another “type” of “Messianic sacrifice” in the Old Testament occurs in Genesis 22, namely, the sacrifice of Isaac! If it had been carried out, it would have been tantamount to “shedding one’s own blood.” It would be akin to the act of killing one's self; aka suicide! In fact, Abraham is commended for attempting this act (Gen. 22.16-17), and then God mysteriously equates Abraham’s act with a “type” of global redemption:

“and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice” (Gen. 22.18).

Let’s not forget that the redemptive sacrifice of Issac is a “type” and a foreshadowing of Christ’s Atonement, that is to say, Christ’s voluntary sacrifice!

——-

The same motif of “shedding one’s own blood” is prevalent in the Old Testament, as, for example, in the killing of Abel by Cain (Genesis 4:1–16). And similar to other messianic stand-ins who have committed murder, such as Moses and David, Cain is also a Messianic-type figure on which God grants divine protection through a special “mark” (Gen. 4.15).

——-

So, these acts of “shedding one’s own blood”——as in the case of Cain killing his brother Abel and especially that of Abraham and Isaac in which Abraham is celebrated as a person of great faith in sacrificing his only son (Heb. 11.17-19)——seem to foreshadow the atoning death and voluntary sacrifice of the Messiah!

——-

Here’s another controversial example that seems to fit the bill. It begins in the Book of Zechariah the prophet:

“Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones” (Zech. 13.7).

But who is “the shepherd” in this verse referring to? Jesus claims that it is a reference to himself:

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (Jn 10.11).

Let’s now take a look at the controversial verse in Mt. 26.31, which is based on Zech. 13.7:

“Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.”

First, why would his followers be offended? Death, on behalf of one’s principles, at the hands of the state has always been viewed as a heroic and noble sacrifice since the death of Socrates! So, one wonders what the cause of the offense might be?

Second, whom does "I” refer to in Mt. 26.31? We already know that Jesus is the “shepherd” in question. So then, who “will smite the shepherd”? Some say God the father; others say, Jesus! If, in fact, this first person singular pronoun refers to Jesus, then according to one noted minister, Frederick K. C. Price, “That means he’s gonna kill himself” (i.e. commit suicide). In other words, the exegesis suggests that Jesus will smite himself!

——-

Given that there are no unnecessary words in the New Testament, and that they’re all there for a reason, the undercurrent of John’s gospel raises an important question: is Jesus going to kill himself?

“Then the Jews said, ‘Is he going to kill himself? Is that what he means by saying, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come'?" (Jn 8.22).

The Original Greek text reads:

ἔλεγον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι · Μήτι ἀποκτενεῖ ἑαυτὸν ὅτι λέγει · Ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν;

That’s a non sequitur. From a literary standpoint, the Jewish conclusion of a possible suicide does not logically follow the apparent context. How can suicide be inferred from Jesus’ statement: “Where I am going, you cannot come”? It cannot! Therefore, we have to assume that something else is going on in the text and that John is trying to give us a heads-up that a suicide might lay in store for him!

Certainly, the Greek phrase “ἀποκτενεῖ ἑαυτὸν” means “to kill himself” (i.e. to commit suicide)!

——-

Conclusion

The fact that Jesus lays down his own life (Jn 15.13) as a voluntary offering and sacrifice, and given that no one else takes his life from him but that he himself lays it down of his own accord” (Jn 10.18), seems to indicate that his death is a result of his own volition rather than that of the traditional set of circumstances that we’re familiar with.

What is more, there are quite a number of references to suicidal or quasi-suicidal deaths in the Old Testament that are then carried forward into the New Testament where, for example, Jesus himself is actually tempted by Satan to commit suicide (Lk 4.9)!

And then we read in John’s penetrating and revealing gospel that the Jews were indeed wondering whether or not Jesus was “going to kill himself?” (8.22)! So, over and above the New Testament’s theological import, we might rightfully ask ourselves: is Jesus’ Death a Sacrifice or a Suicide?

——-

Is Human Sacrifice Forbidden in the Hebrew Bible?

By Author Eli Kittim

——-

Child Sacrifice Versus Messianic Sacrifice

Child sacrifice to other gods (e.g. offering “offspring to Molech” Lev. 20.2; cf. Deut. 12.31; 18.10) is certainly forbidden in the Torah. But the *Messianic sacrifice* or “Sin offering” (Lev. 4; 17.11; Heb. 9.14, 22) is not a Child sacrifice to other gods. On the contrary, the sacrifice of the Anointed One is PRAISED in the Tanakh (e.g. Isa. 53.3-10; Zech. 12.10; Dan. 9.26). The two types of sacrifices are not equivalent.

In reference to the suffering servant, Isaiah says, “upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed” (53.5). Isaiah’s atonement language culminates in an explicit proposition: “you [God] make his life an offering for sin” (53.10). If human sacrifice is always——under all circumstances——forbidden in the Torah, then Isaiah’s God is a completely different God, alien to the Torah, because Isaiah unequivocally and categorically states that Yahweh himself makes the righteous servant’s *human sacrifice* “an offering for sin.”

The Binding of Isaac is a similar biblical narrative in which Yahweh commands Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a human sacrifice (Gen. 22.2). But just prior to the sacrifice that Abraham was about to engage in, he said to his son, “God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son” (Gen. 22.8). So, God will provide His own Lamb. Who, then, could “the Lamb of God” be? (cf. Jn. 1.29; 1.36; Rev. 5.6; 6.9; 7.17; 12.11; 14.4, 10; 15.3; 19.9; 21.23; 22.1, 3)!

——-

Only a Blood Sacrifice Can Atone for Human Sin

The sacred *human-sacrifice* by a God-man as a *once-for-all-atonement* for man’s sin (Heb. 9.26) is not to be confused with the profane and repetitive ritual of Child sacrifice to false gods. In Deut. 18.10, Child sacrifice is abhorrent and forbidden due to its association with foreign gods, idolatry, sorcery, and divination, which are detestable to God (cf. 2 Kings 21.6). However, in a sacred context, God doesn’t necessarily rule out human sacrifice as an atonement for sin:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I

have given it to you for making atonement

for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the

blood that makes atonement (Lev. 17.11).

So, it’s clear that only a blood sacrifice can atone for man’s sins (Heb. 9.22). Nothing else!

Thus, Christ’s *Leviticus-17.11-sacrifice* on the cross——offering himself for the sins of the people——does not violate the prohibition against the detestable Child sacrifices to other gods. The former represents a sacred atonement; the latter, idolatry. Moreover, one finite human being cannot possibly atone for every sin that has ever been committed throughout human history. Hence the necessity for God Himself to atone for the sins of humankind. This Substitutionary atonement is hinted at when the Deity tells Abraham not to kill his own son because God himself will provide for that. This is part of the reason why God has to become a Man and live among us (Jn 1.14). God already foretold his incarnation in the Torah, which, unfortunately, was misinterpreted by the Jews. Regardless, God clearly said: “I will walk among you” (Lev. 26:12; cf. Isa. 9.6; Mic. 5.2; Dan. 7.13-14)! The only possible way he can actually walk among us is in human form. The other reason for God’s incarnation is to transform human existence and the physical world through his glorious resurrection (Dan. 12.1-2; cf. Phil. 3.21; 1 Thess. 4.15-17; 1 Cor. 15.42-58). But, in order to be resurrected, he would have to die first. No other sacrifice would suffice!

——-

Do People Die for their Own Sins or Can Another Person Die in their Stead?

The well-known Jer. 31.30 reference——that “all shall die for their own sins”——is alluding to mere mortals who obviously cannot die for one another. But a “divine” sacrifice, by a God-man, on their behalf, to whom the animal sacrifices were presumably pointing, is not precluded by the text. If no one else can die for human sins, except the person who committed them, then why the need for animal sacrifices in the first place, which became our substitutes in atoning for man's sins?

And what does Isa. 53.5 mean when it says that the suffering servant . . .

was wounded for our transgressions; he

was crushed for our iniquities; upon him

was the chastisement that brought us

peace, and with his stripes we are healed?

If no one else can pay for another’s sins, then *how* is it possible that he was wounded (mə·ḥō·lāl מְחֹלָ֣ל) for our iniquities and our sins? And how can we possibly be *healed* by his punishment? Obviously, Isaiah’s account cannot be disputed on theological grounds since his explicit statement that the suffering servant “was bruised for our sins” is regarded as canonical. Isaiah, then, makes a declaration that seems akin to an article of religious faith: “The punishment [or penalty] of our peace was upon him” (53.5). In other words, he was paying our debt so that we can be forgiven and live in peace, without shame or guilt. And Yahweh has laid on him all of our sins (Isa. 53.6).

He was (נִגְזַר֙) cut off (מֵאֶ֣רֶץ) from the land (חַיִּ֔ים) of the living (מִפֶּ֥שַׁע) for the transgressions (עַמִּ֖י) of my people (Isa. 53.8). This means that he literally DIED **FOR** the SINS of Yahweh’s people at some point in human history! It’s repeated once again in Isa. 53.12, namely, that he bore the sins of many, and for the transgressors (וְלַפֹּשְׁעִ֖ים) he made intercession (יַפְגִּֽיעַ׃). Isaiah 53.11 explicitly declares that He shall justify (יַצְדִּ֥יק) many (לָֽרַבִּ֑ים) for their sins (וַעֲוֺנֹתָ֖ם).

It has all the makings of a credal formulation. For a better understanding, it is advisable that we read the Old Testament in Hebrew, not in English!

——-

Did Paul Reinvent the Torah?

Most Jews think that the Torah is about Works, not Grace, and that Paul reinvented this new Christian-theology of Grace and superimposed it on the Torah. But Paul did not invent anything. He is not reinterpreting the Torah. He is giving us the correct interpretation that was always there. It was the Jews that misinterpreted their scriptures. We therefore need to show how grace was always available, even from the time of the Pentateuch (the Torah). The importance of this study is to show that man cannot save himself by works but only by the Grace of God (Rom. 11.6), based on the merits of the *messianic sacrifice* (or Sin Offering) that we’ve been discussing at some length (Heb. 9.14; 1 Pet. 2.24)!

One could reasonably argue that grace was always available “by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2.23 NASB) and was even explicitly mentioned in the writings of the law and the prophets. Deut. 30.6 (NRSV) is a case in point. The undermentioned verse from the Torah doesn’t appeal to works but to grace:

circumcise your heart and the heart of your

descendants, so that you will love the Lord

your God with all your heart and with all

your soul, in order that you may live.

Ezekiel 36:26 is very similar. Here, once again, the OT is not referring to Works but to Grace. The text reads:

I will give you a new heart and put a new

spirit in you; I will remove from you your

heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

Jeremiah 31.33 (cf. 24.7; 32.39-40) is along similar lines:

I will put my law within them, and I will write

it on their hearts.

In a comparable manner, Ezek. 18.31 (cf. 11.19) says:

Cast away from you all the transgressions

that you have committed against me, and

get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit!

Why will you die, O house of Israel?

As you can see, even the Torah referred to a circumcision of the heart, not of the flesh. The Mosaic Law, according to the prophets, was to be written supernaturally in people’s hearts through the Holy Spirit of regeneration, not through self-striving and personal works (cf. Eph. 2.8-9).

——-

The Revelation of the Suffering Servant’s Atonement for Sin

The Book of Isaiah (53.1) begins with a prophetic declaration:

‎וּזְר֥וֹעַ יְהוָ֖ה עַל־ מִ֥י נִגְלָֽתָה׃

Translation:

and the arm of Yahweh to whom has been

revealed.

In other words, this is a *revelation* from Yahweh which is given to the prophet! In this philological exegesis, it is indisputable that Isaiah is prophesying about a messianic figure (see my article, “Isaiah 53: Why God’s Suffering Servant is Not Israel”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/634210448637624320/isaiah-53-why-gods-suffering-servant-is-not).

Eli of Kittim

Isaiah 53: Why God’s Suffering Servant is Not Israel

By Eli Kittim ——- The Bible sometimes uses metaphorical language that often involves multiple layers of meaning. Here’s a case in point. I

Therefore, Isaiah declares what has been revealed to him by Yahweh. In reference to the suffering servant, he says,

upon him was the punishment that made us

whole, and by his bruises we are healed

(53.5 NRSV).

As if speaking to Yahweh, he would later state: “you make his life an offering for sin” (53.10). Read Isaiah 53.3-10 carefully. The context is about a human sacrifice for sin, which all the animal sacrifices (including that of Isaac) were presumably pointing to. They were types foreshadowing the antitype, that is, the ultimate *sin offering* (cf. Lev. 4; Eph. 1.7; Heb. 9.22; 1 Pet. 1.19)! According to Heb. 10.3-4, the animal sacrifices fell short of atoning for man's sins:

But those sacrifices are an annual reminder

of sins, because it is impossible for the

blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Speaking on this problem, Isaiah prophesied of a servant who would die on behalf of the people, offering his life to atone for their sins!

——-

Are there Two Messiahs or One Messiah in the Hebrew Bible?

Within Judaism itself there was always the idea of dual messiahs, which is the notion that there are either two messiahs or *one messiah* assuming the role of two. Later Judaism certainly talks of two messiahs — the sons of Joseph and David, one of whom (Messiah ben Joseph) will certainly die! According to mainstream Judaism, there are two Messiahs: one is a high priest, the other is an anointed king of the Davidic line. This is what Zech. 4.14 (cf. Rev. 11.4) is referring to when it says:

These are the two anointed ones who stand

by the Lord of the whole earth.

However, in the New Testament, these 2 Messiahs are morphed into one priestly/kingly figure: Jesus the Son of God (cf. Heb. 4.14 and Mt. 2.1–2) who “is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn 2.2).

——-

The Human Sacrifice of the Anointed is Praised in the Hebrew Bible

We find the exact same theme in Isa. 53.3-10 as we do in Zechariah 12.10 (NIV), which reads:

And I will pour out on the house of David

and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of

grace and supplication. They will look on

me, the one they have pierced, and they will

mourn for him as one mourns for an only

child, and grieve bitterly for him as one

grieves for a firstborn son.

That’s because they will come to realize that it was an important figure that was pierced, namely the foretold messiah! This is atonement language. Even Daniel 9.26 (ISV), in the context of the 70-weeks prophecy, employs the atonement language of salvation to describe the Messianic Sacrifice:

Then after the 62 weeks, the anointed one

will be cut down (but not for himself).

In other words, this messianic figure dies for others (not for himself)! What about Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac in the Torah? Why is that story told? According to Rane Willerslev, a Danish academic anthropologist, “ ‘to sacrifice’ translates in religious terms as ‘to make sacred’ “ (God on trial: Human sacrifice, trickery and faith. Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, vol. 3, no. 1 [2013], p. 140). Thus, in order to make men holy, a sacrifice must be offered. This sacrifice to make them sacred must be of the highest order, and reminiscent of the “lamb without … blemish” (1 Pet. 1.19; cf. Lev. 4.32), the so-called sin offering sacrifice according to the specifications of the Mosaic Law! In other words, only a pure, holy, and infinitely divine sacrifice is acceptable to God. Man cannot atone for his sins through the blood of animals. That’s the point! That’s why the temple was destroyed. Because the petty sacrifices of animals were no longer needed (Hos. 6.6). Nor can man atone for his own sins. Only God can atone for man. The gravity of the sacrifice implies that it takes something more than human endeavour to offer oneself in place of all sinners so as to bear the curse of human sin (Gal. 3.13). Hence why the human sacrifice of the Anointed is praised and exalted in the Hebrew Bible. And if that is so, how much more should it be praised and exalted in the Christian Bible? Moses prophesied of the messiah in the Torah: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen” (Deut. 18:15-19). And Jesus attests to the truth of this statement by claiming that Moses wrote about him (John 5:46). See my article “What did Moses Mean when he Said that God will Raise Up a Prophet Like Me?” https://www.tumblr.com/eli-kittim/171117128142/what-did-moses-mean-when-he-said-that-god-will

As far as Jewish objections to Christ’s divinity are concerned, see my article “The Two Powers of the Godhead Were Part of Judaism During the Time of Jesus”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/611381184411336704/the-two-powers-of-the-godhead-were-part-of-judaism

Eli of Kittim

The Two Powers of the Godhead Were Part of Judaism During the Time of Jesus

The Two Powers of the Godhead Were Part of Judaism During the Time of Jesus ——- Metatron and Jesus The early Jewish concept of “Metatron”

——-

What is Predestination?

By Bible Researcher, Eli Kittim

——-

Introduction

Predestination is the doctrine that all events in the universe have been willed by God (i.e. fatalism). It is a form of theological determinism, which presupposes that all history is pre-ordained or predestined to occur. It is based on the absolute sovereignty of God (aka omnipotence). However, there seems to be a paradox in which God’s will appears to be incompatible with human free-will.

The concept of predestination is found only several times in the Bible. It is, however, a very popular doctrine as it is commonly held by many different churches and denominations. But it’s also the seven-headed dragon of soteriology because of its forbidding controversy, which arises when we ask the question, “on what basis does God make his choice?” Not to mention, how do you tell people God loves them and that Jesus died for you?

If we study both the Old and New Testaments, especially in the original Biblical languages, we will come to realize that predestination doesn’t seem to be based on God’s sovereignty but rather on his “foreknowledge.” This is the *Prescience* view of Predestination, namely, that the decision of salvation and/or condemnation is ultimately based on an individual’s free choice!

——-

Free Will

John MacArthur argues that the salvation “offer is always unlimited, otherwise why would we be told to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature?” He went on to say, “The offer is always unlimited or man couldn’t be condemned for rejecting it.”

Let’s take a look at the Old Testament. Isaiah 65.12 (ESV) employs the Hebrew term וּמָנִ֨יתִי (ū·mā·nî·ṯî) to mean “I will destine,” which is derived from the word מָנָה (manah) and means to “appoint” or “reckon.” But on what basis does God make his choice of predestination to damnation (aka the doctrine of reprobation)? God says:

I will destine [or predestine] you to the

sword, and all of you shall bow down to the

slaughter, because, when I called, you did

not answer; when I spoke, you did not listen,

but you did what was evil in my eyes and

chose what I did not delight in.

It’s important to note that those who are condemned to damnation are predestined to go there because when God called them, they didn’t respond to his call. When God tried to enlighten them, they “did not listen,“ but instead “did what was evil” in his sight. In fact, they did what God disapproved of! That’s a far cry from claiming, as the Calvinists do, that God willed it all along. Notice that God’s predestination for the reprobates is not based on his will for them not to be saved, but rather because they themselves had sinned. This is an explicit textual reference which indicates that it was something God “did not delight in.” So, it’s not as if God predestined reprobates to hell based on his sovereign will, as Calvinism would have us believe, but rather because they themselves chose to “forsake the LORD” (Isa. 65.11).

The New Testament offers a similar explanation of God’s official verdict pertaining to the doctrine of reprobation, namely, that condemnation depends on human will, not on God’s will. John 3.16 (NIV) reads:

For God so loved the world that he gave his

one and only Son, that whoever believes in

him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Notice, it doesn’t say that only a limited few can believe and be saved by Jesus. Rather, it says “whoever believes in him [ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν] shall not perish but have eternal life.” That is, anyone who believes in Jesus will not be condemned but will be saved, and will therefore be reckoned as one of the elect. Verse 17 says:

For God did not send his Son into the world

to condemn the world, but to save the world

through him.

Once again, there’s a clear distinction between the individual and the world as a whole, as well as a contrast between condemning and saving the world, and we are told that the Son was sent to save the entire world. The next verse (v. 18) explains that condemnation itself ultimately lies not with God but with our own personal choices and decisions. “Whoever does not believe stands condemned already” (i.e. is predestined to condemnation):

Whoever believes in him is not condemned,

but whoever does not believe stands

condemned already because they have not

believed in the name of God’s one and only

Son.

Verse 19 puts this dilemma in its proper perspective and gives us the judicial verdict, as it were, that we are ultimately responsible for our actions:

This is the verdict: Light has come into the

world, but people loved darkness instead of

light because their deeds were evil.

This conclusion can be easily illustrated. In Rev. 3.20 (KJV), does Christ imply that man’s free will doesn’t really matter at all? Does he say?:

Behold, I stand at the door. Don’t worry, I

won’t bother knocking on the door. Your

your response is unnecessary. You don’t

even have to open the door. I will break it

down and force my way inside.

Is that what he says? No. He says:

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if

any man hear my voice, and open the door,

I will come in to him, and will sup with him,

and he with me.

God respects our free will. Notice the condition that is set before us: someone has to open the door, which is equivalent to granting Christ permission to come in and become a part of them. But the choice ultimately rests with us, not with God. Unless we say yes, nothing happens. We must answer the call (cf. Isa. 65.12) and respond in the affirmative, just as Mary did in the gospel of Luke (1.38 NASB):

‘may it be done to me according to your

word.’

Similarly, Mt. 22.14 clearly shows that those that are not chosen are nevertheless “called”:

‘For many are called, but few are chosen.’

What is more, according to the Biblical text, anyone can become a member of God’s family. Just because God already “foreknows” who will accept and who will reject his invitation doesn’t mean that people are held unaccountable. For Christ doesn’t only take away the sin of the elect, but of the entire world (Jn 1.29 NKJV):

Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away

the sin of the world!

First John 2.2 reads:

And He Himself is the propitiation for our

sins, and not for ours only but also for the

whole world.

In a similar fashion, Rev 22.17 (KJ) says:

Come. And let him that is athirst come. And

whosoever will, let him take the water of life

freely [δωρεάν].

That doesn’t sound to me like a “predestined” election in which only a select few will receive the water of life, but rather a proclamation that salvation is “freely” (δωρεάν) offered to anyone who desires it. Moreover, in 2 Pet. 3.9 (ESV), we are told that “The Lord” doesn’t want to condemn anyone at all:

[he’s] not wishing that any should perish,

but that all should reach repentance.

Is this biblical reference compatible with Calvin’s views? Definitely not! Calvin suggests that God is the author of sin and the only one who ultimately decides on who will repent and who will perish.

Unlimited Atonement

There seems to be a comparison and contrast between the “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (in Rom. 9.22), and the “vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory” (v. 23). But we cannot jump to any conclusions because the text doesn’t explicitly say that both classes of people are predestined either to election or condemnation by the sovereign will of God. Furthermore, the terms that are used, here, are not the same as the ones used for predestination elsewhere in the Bible. For example, the Greek term often used for “predestination” is προορίζω or proorizó (cf. Acts 4.28; Rom. 1.4; 8.29; Eph. 1.5, 11). However, the Greek word used in Rom. 9.22 is καταρτίζω (katartizó), which means to complete or prepare (not predestine). It could simply refer to the remainder of the population that will miss out on salvation. it doesn’t necessarily follow that these are predestined (κατηρτισμένα) to destruction.

The next verse employs the term προητοίμασεν (prepared) to refer to the elect, or the “vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.” But caution is advised. The term used is proētoimasen (prepared), not proorizó (predestined). This expression can refer to that portion of the population that God adopted into his family and nourished into maturity. The text is unclear as to whether the term “prepared” suggests that God coerced them into “election” by overriding their free will, while they were kicking and screaming. Besides, their personal choice may have been *foreknown* and acknowledged from the foundation of the world. It still doesn’t prove predestination, as defined by Augustine and Calvin.

If, in fact, God predestined some to salvation and some to perdition, so that Jesus didn’t die for all people but only for a limited few, then it wouldn’t make any sense for the New Testament to say that Christ “gave himself a ransom for all.” Nor would God contradict himself by saying that “he desires everyone to be saved.” First Timothy 2.3-6 (NRSV) reads:

This is right and is acceptable in the sight of

God our Savior, who desires everyone to be

saved and to come to the knowledge of the

truth. For there is one God; there is also one

mediator between God and humankind,

Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave

himself a ransom for all [not for some].

Notice that Christ’s atonement potentially covers even sinners who are not yet part of the “elect.” In the following verse, observe what the text says. There were apostates who denied “the Lord who bought them.” This means that Christ’s atonement is not “limited”; it covers them, as well. Second Peter 2.1 (NKJV) reads:

But there were also false prophets among

the people, even as there will be false

teachers among you, who will secretly bring

in destructive heresies, even denying the

Lord who bought them, and bring on

themselves swift destruction.

Prescience (Foreknowledge)

The Greek term that is typically used for predestination is also used in Rom. 1.4 (ESV), namely, the term ὁρισθέντος (from ὁρίζω), which carries the meaning of “determining beforehand,” “appointing,” or “designating.” However, notice that, here, this term is translated as “declared”:

and was declared to be the Son of God in

power according to the Spirit of holiness by

his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ

our Lord.

But was Jesus Christ predestined to be the Son of God? No. He already was the Son of God. Nevertheless, what he would perform in the future was “declared” beforehand, or announced in advance. This verse, then, demonstrates that the word “foreknown” would be a more accurate term than “predestined”!

Similarly, Rom. 8.29 (ESV) tells us that those he “foreknew” (προέγνω), the same God προώρισεν (from προορίζω), that is, foreordained, predetermined, or pre-appointed beforehand. And Rom. 8.30 goes on to say that those he προώρισεν (predetermined) were the same that God also called, justified, and glorified. Verse 29 says:

For those whom he foreknew he also

predestined to be conformed to the image

of his Son.

Notice that God’s *foreknowledge* temporally precedes predestination. If God actually chose to save some and not to save others before the foundation of the world, then his foreknowledge would be irrelevant. But since it is on this basis that God predestines, it doesn’t sound as if predestination is chosen on the basis of God’s sovereign will.

Conclusion

Acts 4.28 does say that God’s will προώρισεν (predetermined beforehand) what will happen. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that everything that has occurred in human history is based on the will of God (i.e. fatalism). And we don’t know to what extent God influences reality. So, we cannot jump to any conclusions that God is behind everything that happens. Why? Because with absolute responsibility comes absolute blame. Is God responsible for murder, or rape, or genocide? I think not! So, we are on safer ground if we acknowledge that God “foreknew” what would happen and declared it beforehand (cf. Isa. 46.10). This notion would be far more consistent with the Bible than placing the full blame for everything that has ever occurred in the world on God. This seems to be the Achilles' heel of Calvinism.

Ephesians 1.5 is another controversial verse. The Greek term used is προορίσας (from προορίζω), meaning “foreordain,” “predetermine,” or “pre-approve beforehand.” The verse reads:

he predestined us for adoption to himself as

sons through Jesus Christ, according to the

purpose of his will.

But what exactly does the term “will” mean, here? Does it refer to God’s choice to save only a limited few and no one else, or to his overall plan of salvation that includes all people? It seems as if God saved those who answered his invitation, as it were, which would explain why he has “foreknown” them and predestined them for glory. I think that the latter explanation seems far more compatible with the Bible by a preponderance of the evidence.

Finally, let’s look at Ephesians 1.11. The Greek term that is used is προορισθέντες (from proorizó), meaning to “predetermine” or “foreordain beforehand.” The verse says that we have been predestined according to his purpose. Granted, it does say that all things work according to God’s will. However, to be fair, we don’t know exactly how that works, and so we can’t offer premature assumptions and presuppositions, especially when they contradict other passages in the Bible.

It would be utterly foolish to suppose that the God of the universe does not affect, influence, or sustain his creation. The fact that he created the universe obviously implies that he had a purpose for it. So, I’m not discounting the notion that all things are, in a certain sense, guided by his ultimate purpose. However, I take issue with those thinkers who take it to the extreme and portray the deity as an authoritarian and capricious God who bypasses the principles of truth and wisdom and intervenes by forcibly coercing man's free will. That type of God is inconsistent with the infinitely wise, holy, true, and good God of the Bible. That is precisely why “Arminius taught that Calvinist predestination and unconditional election made God the author of evil” (Wiki)!

——-

What Is Original Sin?

By Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

Most of us think that we are good people. We haven’t harmed anyone. We’re not that bad. So, what kind of sins do we have to confess? In fact, sometimes we can’t even think of any. Yet 1 John 1.8-10 (KJV) reads:

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive

ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we

confess our sins, he is faithful and just to

forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from

all unrighteousness. If we say that we have

not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word

is not in us.

——-

Original Sin

Original sin is the Christian doctrine that human beings inherit a sin nature at birth, with some Protestant theologians even arguing for total depravity, namely, that we’re in such a state of rebellion against God that we’re not even able to follow him, by ourselves, without his effectual grace. Other Christian theologians, such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD), totally dismissed the thought of original sin by giving it a more allegorical interpretation.

Unlike Christianity, both Judaism and Islam hold a more positive view of human nature. They assert that human beings have an equal capacity for both good and evil, and that they don’t inherit another person’s sin at birth. They also claim that although humans might be culturally conditioned to sin by decadent societies, nevertheless they’re not born that way. To back that up, the Jews often quote the Torah (Deut. 24.16), which states:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the

children, neither shall the children be put to

death for the fathers: every man shall be

put to death for his own sin.

To drive the point home, they usually cite Ezekiel 18.20:

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the

father, neither shall the father bear the

iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the

righteous shall be upon him, and the

wickedness of the wicked shall be upon

him.

But these passages are only referring to actual sins, namely, to behavioral sins that each individual is personally responsible for. These verses, however, are not addressing *collective sin* that resides in human nature.

——-

The Collective Unconscious

Carl Jung (1875 - 1961), the famous Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, defined the concept we now know as the “collective unconscious.” This phrase refers to the deepest layer of the unconscious mind which, according to Jung, is genetically inherited and is therefore not part of individual history or personal experience. In other words, it’s not part of the personal unconscious.

Jung held that each person retains these innate unconscious impressions of humanity as a collective knowledge of our species. They’re in our genes, so to speak. But, here, also lurk all the dark, animal instincts of man, as well as the archetypes. One such archetype is called the “shadow,” an unconscious aspect of the personality that the conscious self doesn’t recognize or identify with. It represents a large portion of the *dark side* that is completely foreign and unknown to the ego. These collectively-inherited unconscious archetypes are universally present in every human being.

Over the years, many artistic works, like Star Wars, have addressed themselves to the dark side of human nature, from Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon, to horror movies like American Psycho and Hannibal Lecter, to the constant violence that no current Action film seems to be without. Life imitating art would be when we witness the exact same things happening in real life while turning on the 6 o’clock news. We customarily disassociate ourselves from this aspect of human nature. We can never imagine that this state of mind resides within all of us. We always point fingers at someone else. In our eyes, we are saints. We’re like the Pharisee in Luke 18.11:

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with

himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as

other men are, extortioners, unjust,

adulterers, or even as this publican.

But, according to Jesus, we are all a bunch of hypocrites. In Matthew 15.18-19, Jesus implies that the dark side is hidden in the unconscious. It’s not simply a conscious thought, a spoken word, or an action that is the cause of one’s sinful behavior but rather a deep state of being (aka “the heart”) out of which proceeds all manner of evil:

But those things which proceed out of the

mouth come forth from the heart; and they

defile the man. For out of the heart proceed

evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,

fornications, thefts, false witness,

blasphemies.

That’s why Jeremiah 17.9 declares:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and

desperately wicked: who can know it?

No wonder Paul says that the unregenerate are still carnal (Rom. 8.8):

they that are in the flesh cannot

please God.

As theologian Timothy Keller asserts:

The church is not a museum for pristine

saints, but a hospital ward for broken

sinners.

If one fails to understand Jung’s concept of the “collective unconscious,” or the dark side of human nature, one will ultimately misunderstand the Biblical doctrine of original sin.

——-

Why Does Jesus Have to Die for Humanity?

Jesus doesn’t have to suffer greatly and die on a tree simply on account of sins that were committed in the past, or to justify repentant sinners because of their current or future sins. No! Jesus dies to redeem *human nature* from original sin. He dies for humanity’s collective sin (past, present, and future). And he also redeems humanity, in himself, by dying to sin. In other words, Jesus dies to the sinful state of being, if you will, in order to free human nature from the bondage of death and decay. Not only does Jesus justify sinners by dying to sin, but because he is God, he also transforms human nature itself. In the resurrection, Christ’s human nature that rises from the grave is no longer sin-tainted, but glorious!

Otherwise, if everyone sinned voluntarily, and human beings were not tainted by original sin, then there wouldn’t be any reason for God’s Son to die for mankind. In that case, sin would be an individual or personal responsibility, not a collective one. And humanity would not need a savior because there would be neither a collective cause nor a cure for crime, violence, and murder. These people would simply be classified as criminal offenders who, unlike others, consciously “chose” to behave that way.

However, that’s not what Paul says in Romans 5.18–19:

Therefore as by the offence of one [Adam]

judgment came upon all men to

condemnation; even so by the

righteousness of one [Christ] the free gift

came upon all men unto justification of life.

For as by one man's disobedience many

were made sinners, so by the obedience of

one shall many be made righteous.

In fact, Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 15.21-22:

For since by man came death, by man

came also the resurrection of the dead. For

as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all

be made alive.

Conclusion

Because the concept of the unconscious had not yet been discovered in Antiquity or the Dark Ages, the existence of the collective unconscious was not known, let alone addressed by either Judaism or Islam. Their criticism of original sin is quite unsophisticated and is presented exclusively from the point of view of the conscious mind. They neither comprehend the totality of the personality nor do they consider unconscious motivation. Therefore, to deny or ignore the overwhelming influence of the dark side of man (aka sin nature) is equivalent to a naïveté: a lack of experience, sophistication, and wisdom! This lack of skillful treatment is either due to innocence or deep repression.

That’s precisely why many people don’t know what sin is. And, consequently, they keep sinning. They can’t even understand why Jesus has to die for them. They often ask, what’s the big fuss about “original sin”? Read Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “The heart of man is exceedingly deceitful.”

What do you think is the meaning behind Robert Louis Stevenson’s book, “The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde”? It presents the duality within man. This work is emphasizing the dark side of human nature that is hidden underneath our socially-acceptable “Dr. Jekyll” persona. But in the unconscious lurks another personality, Mr. Hyde, who represents evil that’s waiting in the wings. The depth of human cruelty is also represented in “Heart of darkness,” by Joseph Conrad. It’s the same idea in Bram Stoker's “Dracula.” All these classic works of art act like mirrors in trying to show us blind spots that we don’t usually see in ourselves and end up projecting onto others. And this darkness that proceeds from man’s collective unconscious is what Christian theologians have coined “original sin.” Louis Berkhof, in his “Systematic Theology,” pt. 2, ch. 4, writes:

actual sin in the life of man is generally

admitted. This does not mean, however,

that people have always had an equally

profound consciousness of sin. We hear a

great deal nowadays about the ‘loss of the

sense of sin.’

Therefore, the psychological and spiritual goal is to give up one's naivete and to expand one's consciousness so as to embrace and integrate all aspects of one’s personality and human nature. That’s what psychoanalysts mean when they say, “making the unconscious conscious.” It is here that rebirth in Christ becomes possible. That’s why wisdom teachers typically say that we need to see existence as it really is. What you need to do, in the words of the Dalai Lama (which represent the title of his book), is to figure out “How to see yourself as you really are.” It is then, and only then, when you will finally realize that sin is not simply an isolated behavior, but rather a state of being——deeply rooted in the “carnal mind” (cf. Rom. 6.6)——that needs to be transformed by the Holy Spirit. And that *existential experience* in and of itself constitutes not only a prelude to “rebirth,” but also the hope of salvation in Jesus Christ!

——-

For more info on this topic, see my essay, “BIBLICAL SIN: NOT AS BEHAVIOR BUT AS ULTIMATE TRANSGRESSION”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/184880965717/i-think-the-greek-phrase-%CF%87%CF%89%CF%81%E1%BD%B6%CF%82-%E1%BC%81%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82-ie

Eli of Kittim

BIBLICAL SIN: NOT AS BEHAVIOR BUT AS ULTIMATE TRANSGRESSION

I think the Greek phrase χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας (i.e. “without sin”) in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 4.15 has been greatly misunderstood. If in thi

So, my sister and Robbie were never able to have the time together they both so longed for… and deserved. Which ever since I’ve… ever since I’ve always felt I prevented. But what sense of hope or satisfaction could a reader derive from an ending like that? So in the book, I wanted to give Robbie and Cecilia what they lost out on in life. I’d like to think this isn’t weakness or… evasion… but a final act of kindness. I gave them their happiness.

Atonement (2007) dir Joe Wright

Atonement (2008)

Directed by Joe Wright

I wanted to give Robbie and Cecilia what they lost out on in life. I’d like to think this isn’t weakness or… evasion… but a final act of kindness. I gave them their happiness. Atonement (2007), dir. Joe Wright

Atonement (2007)

This movie had me sobbing for hours

Atonement (2006) Directed By: Joe Wright

ATONEMENT (2007) dir. Joe Wright

JAMES MCAVOY as ROBBIE TURNER ATONEMENT (2007) dir. Joe Wright

GREEN DRESSES IN FILM

“I didn’t want to wear your tacky green dress anyhow, stingy.”

ATONEMENT (2007) dir. Joe Wright

James McAvoy and Keira Knightley fragile performances give Atonement exactly what it needs to make it into a great modern film about love and war. Saoirse Ronan child prodigy charms counterparts with the gentle take of Romola Garai. But Vanessa Redgrave steals the scene and masterfully turns the table to bring a conclusion that stands nothing short of impressive. (at Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro)

We need more fanfiction of the following characters/celebs:

Dean Winchester x reader from Supernatural

Charles Xavier x reader from X-Men

Erik Lehnsherr x reader from X-Men

Robbie Turner x reader from Atonement

Beau Arlen x reader from Big Sky

Soldier boy x reader from The Boys

Wolverine x reader from X-Men

James McAvoy x reader

Hugh Jackman x (daughter) reader

Michael Fassbender x reader

Tony Stark x reader, preferably daughter!reader from Marvel-movies

Clint Barton x reader from Marvel-movies

Avengers x reader, any Avenger at all really.

Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) x reader from Fantastic Beasts

Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) x reader from Fantastic Beasts

Jack Dawson x reader, Titanic

Legolas x reader from Hobbit-movies and Lord of the Rings-movies

Aragorn x reader from Lord of the Rings-movies

Eomer x reader from Lord of the Rings-movies

Faramir x reader from Lord of the Rings-movies

Castiel x reader from Supernatural

LOTR/Hobbit characters x reader

Charlie Hudson x reader from Hudson & Rex

Lord Asriel x reader from His Dark Materials

Nick Ryan x reader from McLeod's daughters

Richard O'Connell x reader from The Mummy movies

Wade Wilson/Deadpool x reader from Deadpool-movies

Richard Castle x reader from Castle

Drover (Hugh Jackman) x reader from Australia

Ronan Keating x reader

Christian x reader from Moulin Rouge

Aidan Turner x reader and his characters x reader

James Bond (Daniel Craig) x reader

Bucky Barnes x reader

Steve Rogers x reader

Obi-Wan Kenobi x reader from Star Wars prequels and Obi-Wan Kenobi-series

Ewan McGregor x reader

Anakin Skywalker x reader from Star Wars prequels

Hayden Christensen x reader

Owen Grady x reader from Jurassic World

Bucky Barnes x reader from Marvel-movies

Sirius Black x reader from Harry Potter- movies

Cedric Diggory x reader from Harry Potter- movies

Draco Malfoy x reader from Harry Potter-movies

Indiana Jones x reader from Indiana Jones- movies

Cillian Murphy x reader

Tommy Shelby x reader from Peaky Blinders

Harry Goodman x daughter reader from Pokemon Detective Pikachu

Pete "Maverick" Mitchell x (daughter) reader from Top Gun/Top Gun: Maverick

Tom "Iceman" Kazansky x (daughter) reader from Top Gun/ Top Gun: Maverick

Bradley "Rooster" Bradshaw x reader from Top Gun: Maverick

Jake "Hangman" Seresin x reader from Top Gun: Maverick

Robin Hood/Robin of Loxley (Taron Egerton) x reader from Robin Hood

Rafe McCawley x reader from Pearl Harbor

Daniel "Danny" Walker x reader from Pearl Harbor

Eggsy Unwin x reader from the Kingsman-movies

I'll add here more as I remember more characters/celebs. I prefer character x female reader. The ones in bold need more fanfiction.

The life you lived

You watch the officers take him away, tears streaming down your cheeks.

You then turn around and walk away. Your mother follows you inside the house. She grabs your arm, making you turn around.

"How could you?" You ask.

"I had to.."

"No, you didn't have to!" You interrupted her.

"I love him, more than you ever could think!"

"No, you don't, you just think you do"

You let out a sigh, kneeling down to take off your heels. You straighten up again, looking straight at your mother with glistening eyes.

Then you walk away to your room, this time your mother doesn't follow you. She just watches you go.

5 years later, the war has started. You're nurse at hospital, which is located on the country side. You just needed to get as far as you could get from your family, from your old life, from your past.

You are putting the supplies away at the storage room, when nurse running by says that there are soldiers coming. You run out of the room, following her, rounding the corners until you reach the lobby, which is swarmed with soldiers and nurses. You get right to helping the soldiers as best as you can. Then you are asked to tend to one specific soldier. They say he's asking you, you hurry towards the room, where the injured soldiers are located in.

You see the area secluded from the other area with plain light brown curtains. You move the curtains, slipping inside. You turn around, seeing him lying on the bed. You stare at him, he looks at you.

"Robbie" You whisper.

"Y/N" He whispers back.

You walk to his bedside, sitting down. He grasps your hand, squeezing it gently. You let your eyes check him out for any injuries. Only one you can see is that he has his arm bandaged. You put your lips against his, kissing him. He puts his arm around your shoulders, pulling you closer. You break the kiss, putting your foreheads together.

"You have to back to the battlefront, don't you?"

"I don't know, but I hope not"

You nod.

"Can you walk?"

"Yes"

"Then follow me"

He gets up and follows you.

"Now, we'll go and ask someone if you have to go back"

He nods.

"Hey, sir, we have a question for you!" You call out to the higher rank soldier.

"Yes, ma'am?"

"I'd like to know if he has to back to the battlefront?"

"I'm afraid so, we need every single man we can get"

"Alright, thank you, sir"

He raises his hat for you, walking away.

You turn to Robbie, sad look on your face.

He pulls you in for a hug, whispering in you ear:

"Marry me?"

You grab his hand, going to find a church. Soon you're inside the church, holding hands, standing in front of the priest. Robbie's two soldier friends, Nettle and Mace are there as witnesses.

"Now I pronounce you husband and wife, you may kiss the bride"

Robbie pulls you closer to him, pressing his lips to yours.

*small timeskip*

You're at the trailway station, saying goodbye to Robbie.

"Come back to me" You whisper in his ear. He says nothing, just kisses you from the train window.

You step down to the ground, holding his hand until it slips from your grasp. You see the train go further and further away, watching it go until it has disappeared from sight.

*another timeskip*

You're at a small house in the village you spent your time with Robbie until he had to leave to go back to the war.

You stand on the balcony, staring at the sea, you haven't heard from him from a long time.

But you know that he'll come back. You go back inside, seeing the higher rank soldier through the window you encountered earlier at the hospital. He's holding a letter, you already know what it reads. You open your front door, collapsing down to your knees, as the notifier approaches you.

"I'm sorry, ma'am, but your husband has died of septicaemia"

You thank him in whisper, he kneels in front of you, putting the letter in your palm, shutting your hand around it. Then he kisses your head, standing up and leaving. You stay on your knees on the ground. Then you hear small footsteps coming towards you.

"Mommy, where's daddy?"

You look up at your and Robbie's children with glistening eyes.

"Daddy isn't coming back"

Your children walk to you, wrapping their small arms around you.

You let out a small cry, whispering:

"Daddy is never coming back"

You shut your eyes, memories flashing through your mind. The day you first met him, the happiest moments of your life with him and last time you ever saw him.

You whisper into the air:

"If you must die, die knowing that your life was my life's best part"

Weeks later after you have buried him, you receive a small package in the mail.

You open it, seeing Robbie's few belongings, including the stack of letters and photos, cigarettes and a lighter. And of course his wedding ring.

You let single tear roll down your cheek, dropping down on the letter on top. It was never delivered to you. You read the text in it.

"I'm coming back to you"

Except he never did.

You're lying on your bed, surrounded by your children and grandchildren, your eldest child is holding your hand.

"Mom, it's okay, go meet dad, you deserve it" The eldest one says, smiling at you.

You smile at them, looking at every and each one of them. You then look up and mouth:

"I'm coming to you, my love"

You shut your eyes and let out your last breath on Earth. Then you open your eyes, letting out your first breath in Heaven, standing inside the house, you smile. You then look around the small house, it's just like you remembered it. Even the knife Robbie did leave on the table is there just like the day he left to go back to the war. You open the balcony door, stepping out. You breathe in the sea air. You lower your gaze to the beach, seeing him standing near the waterline. You smile, running down the balcony stairs.

You come to a stop right in front of him.

"Hello, my love" Robbie says as he turns around to face you. He pulls you into a hug, vowing to himself that he'll never ever let go again.

You pull back, looking up at his dazzling blue eyes.

"I've missed you so, so much"

"I know, love, I know, I've missed you too"

He pulls you against his chest, wrapping his arms around you, watching the sunset together, for the first time but certainly not the last time in forever.

The end.

Come back to me

You're standing in your small cottage, all alone with your newborn baby in your arms, gently swaying back and forth, lulling the baby to sleep. You look out of the window to the raging sea. The sea perfectly reflects how you're feeling on the inside. You look down at the child in your arms, you softly lie him down into his crib. Then you open the balcony door, stepping outside. The rain quickly soaks through your blue cotton dress. Then you hear a knock on the front door, you go in, shutting the other door behind you. You open the front door, dripping wet.

"Yes?"

"Are you Y/N Turner?"

"I am"

"Then I believe this belongs to you" The courier says, giving you a small package.

Then he turns and leaves. You turn the package around, you see handwriting on it. You shut the door, walking to the table, sitting down. You read the text on the package.

It simply reads "goodbye, my love"

You let out a cry, realizing that you'll never see him again.

You gently open it, seeings his wedding ring on top of his other belongings.

You take the ring and turn it around in your fingers. Then you get up, retrieving a necklace from your drawer. You slip the ring on it, putting the chain around your neck. You sit back down going through the remainings he left.

"Oh god" You whisper.

You move the lighter and cigarettes, seeing his uniform jacket under them. You grab it and pull it on. It still faintly smells like him, you bury your face into your hands. Then you feel a hand on your shoulder.

You turn your head towards the hand.

Robbie is smiling at you. He doesn't say anything, just kisses your head,checking on your child on his way out and then walks through the balcony door. You follow him but by the time, you're outside, Robbie is already on the beach. He turns around and you hear his words in the wind.

"I'll come back to you one day and this I'll promise to you"

The wind tousles up your hair, tears streaming steadily down your cheeks as you watch him go until he fades from view. And he kept his promise, he came back to you again, it just took some time. You got your happy ending, after all the obstacles you had to go through, together and alone.

The end.