The Constitution of the Atonement
Dec 20, 2013 13:10:12 GMT
Post by Colossians on Dec 20, 2013 13:10:12 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
____________________________________
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ATONEMENT
Numbers 30:
[10] “And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; [11] And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. [12] But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her. [13] Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. [14] But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them. [15] But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity.”
In our work “Understanding Romans 3:31”, we have referred to verse 15 above as “the True-Husband Law”.
And because Christ has, by virtue of His Cross, the preeminence in all things, we understand the husband of this True-Husband Law to be a type for Christ.
Commensurately, we understand the wife in this passage as a type for those whom Christ has saved, and the oaths she makes to God and with which she “afflicts” herself, as a type for the law.
In accord then with this work on the Constitution of the Atonement, we now delineate the 3 vital aspects of this passage.
The husband could only void the oaths of his own wife
The distinction between potential wives as far as Christ is concerned, is typed in Israel vs non-Israel (Israel vs Babylon, Egypt, Moab ... etc).
That is, the notion of Christ’s being “faithful” to those in Him, is not simply the modern evangelical notion that He persists with them unto the preservation of their salvation, but that He doesn’t divorce them and marry another.
For faithfulness is primarily a concept associated with marriage.
That is, it is invariably unnoticed in theology that Christ has, in theory and setting aside His righteousness, an alternative bride, and that His faithfulness to us therefore necessarily incorporates an anti-infidelity aspect, as with human marriage.
Such particular-wife faithfulness, is of course constrained by the fact that such particular wife constitutes the entire (former) possession of the Father. For Jesus has declared to the Father: “thine they were and thou gavest them [to] me”.
Ramification: Particular Atonement (also known as "Limited Atonement").
The husband was first of all a husband according to law
Those particularly atoned for are ascribed with marriage to Christ, before He reveals to them His true-husband qualities by taking the law away from over them, and therefore before they are born again.
Ramification: Predestination/election.1
1 But see our works on Statal Calvinism.
The oaths voided were not publicly known, but private
Because the “iniquity” of the wife (her non-fulfilment of her oaths to God) and the bearing thereof by her husband, was a private matter, the law necessarily contained no punitive measure to be brought against the husband in such regard: nobody except the husband and his wife knew about it anyway.
We therefore understand the nature of this bearing of her iniquity to be determined solely by characteristics intrinsic to the marriage relationship itself. And indeed such is affirmed tacitly via contrast, for when the oaths of a daughter were voided by her father, her father was not made to bear her iniquity as was the husband his wife’s. Rather, she would be forgiven by the Lord and all would be forgotten (Num 30:5).
And so the bearing of the wife’s iniquity was not forensically constrained, but institutionally: the institution that is marriage constrained the husband to act as ‘priest’ on behalf of his wife, and this by virtue of his being the 'stronger' gender in that he is less affected by emotion-inducing hormones.
In short, the true husband would absorb the weaknesses of his wife rather than see her afflict herself with attempts to negate such weaknesses by way of personal oaths to God, and in so absorbing, would fulfil the NT directive to Christian husbands to “love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it”.
Therefore contrary to what is usually espoused by the church, Christ was not punished by the Father for our sins as forensic substitute (which substitution is not accepted in any court of law and which is contrary to the teachings in the Torah that the sinner shall pay for his own sin), but rather, His death on the cross was irresistible manifestation of a very real giving up of His rights of a legally-delineated husbandhood, with the single exception of one very special legal right: the right to take upon Himself our weaknesses.
And so the NT declares:
“For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly” Rom 5:6.
Ramification: Christ our sacrifice, not our substitute.
____________________________________
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ATONEMENT
Numbers 30:
[10] “And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; [11] And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. [12] But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her. [13] Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. [14] But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them. [15] But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity.”
In our work “Understanding Romans 3:31”, we have referred to verse 15 above as “the True-Husband Law”.
And because Christ has, by virtue of His Cross, the preeminence in all things, we understand the husband of this True-Husband Law to be a type for Christ.
Commensurately, we understand the wife in this passage as a type for those whom Christ has saved, and the oaths she makes to God and with which she “afflicts” herself, as a type for the law.
In accord then with this work on the Constitution of the Atonement, we now delineate the 3 vital aspects of this passage.
The husband could only void the oaths of his own wife
The distinction between potential wives as far as Christ is concerned, is typed in Israel vs non-Israel (Israel vs Babylon, Egypt, Moab ... etc).
That is, the notion of Christ’s being “faithful” to those in Him, is not simply the modern evangelical notion that He persists with them unto the preservation of their salvation, but that He doesn’t divorce them and marry another.
For faithfulness is primarily a concept associated with marriage.
That is, it is invariably unnoticed in theology that Christ has, in theory and setting aside His righteousness, an alternative bride, and that His faithfulness to us therefore necessarily incorporates an anti-infidelity aspect, as with human marriage.
Such particular-wife faithfulness, is of course constrained by the fact that such particular wife constitutes the entire (former) possession of the Father. For Jesus has declared to the Father: “thine they were and thou gavest them [to] me”.
Ramification: Particular Atonement (also known as "Limited Atonement").
The husband was first of all a husband according to law
Those particularly atoned for are ascribed with marriage to Christ, before He reveals to them His true-husband qualities by taking the law away from over them, and therefore before they are born again.
Ramification: Predestination/election.1
1 But see our works on Statal Calvinism.
The oaths voided were not publicly known, but private
Because the “iniquity” of the wife (her non-fulfilment of her oaths to God) and the bearing thereof by her husband, was a private matter, the law necessarily contained no punitive measure to be brought against the husband in such regard: nobody except the husband and his wife knew about it anyway.
We therefore understand the nature of this bearing of her iniquity to be determined solely by characteristics intrinsic to the marriage relationship itself. And indeed such is affirmed tacitly via contrast, for when the oaths of a daughter were voided by her father, her father was not made to bear her iniquity as was the husband his wife’s. Rather, she would be forgiven by the Lord and all would be forgotten (Num 30:5).
And so the bearing of the wife’s iniquity was not forensically constrained, but institutionally: the institution that is marriage constrained the husband to act as ‘priest’ on behalf of his wife, and this by virtue of his being the 'stronger' gender in that he is less affected by emotion-inducing hormones.
In short, the true husband would absorb the weaknesses of his wife rather than see her afflict herself with attempts to negate such weaknesses by way of personal oaths to God, and in so absorbing, would fulfil the NT directive to Christian husbands to “love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it”.
Therefore contrary to what is usually espoused by the church, Christ was not punished by the Father for our sins as forensic substitute (which substitution is not accepted in any court of law and which is contrary to the teachings in the Torah that the sinner shall pay for his own sin), but rather, His death on the cross was irresistible manifestation of a very real giving up of His rights of a legally-delineated husbandhood, with the single exception of one very special legal right: the right to take upon Himself our weaknesses.
And so the NT declares:
“For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly” Rom 5:6.
Ramification: Christ our sacrifice, not our substitute.