Redemption of sin by Christ. OT support or made up?

Spectrum

Does the OT support the Christian doctrine that a heavenly Messiah would come and redeem us of our sins, due to Adams fall, hence the advent of Jesus Christ? Or was it a made up doctrine by the early followers of Christ to give credence and purpose of existence to their faith? If the latter is the case then it is understandable why the Muslims believe that the Christians are so wrong in belief in Christ as a heavenly figure.

Crumpet

sorry to be ignorant but who is the OT?

found-my-way

Crumpet,

OT = old testament

Narkissos

There is very little in the Hebrew Bible (or OT) to support any idea of future messianism if read in context.

The main (if not only) passage which Christians found to support the idea of a suffering/dying messiah is the so-called "Song of the Servant" in Isaiah 52--53. In context, though it most likely applies to a past of contemporary character (from the perspective of the writer). And the Servant there is not called messiah or "anointed" (Deutero-Isaiah otoh gives this title to Cyrus), nor does he come from heaven.

Spectrum

So how did the Christians make up this elaborate doctrine? And do the Muslims and Jews have a point? I realise that it is a big issue to discuss so if anybody has any references I'd appreciate it. The JWs always bang on about how wonderfully the OT and NT are interwined and seemless and how one makes no sense without the other.

Terry

Old Testament Justice was like for like compensation or retribution to be paid by an offender to an injured party (or nearest relative).

Forgiveness lay in the person of the injured.

Ritual law required a value be set on the damage and its equivalency was offered by the accused. A priest was made the broker of the deal or go-between.

A murderer could not ask forgiveness of a dead victim. A city of refuge allowed him to hide for a period of time or he was fair game for next of kin who could shed his blood.

Eventually the tribal bloodbaths became too much for civilized people to endure. The shedding of blood in vengence had to be allayed somehow. Blood feuds plague modern day tribal and regional semites as well as religious groups. The original offense is buried in history but the open wound is as fresh as today's newspaper.

When Israel was swallowed up by the Greek backwash of Alexander the Great's conquests; it became necessary to deal with internecine flare-ups with ritual procedures that would not attract outside attention and bring down the wrath of the Protectorate. (Greek or Roman).

The office of the High Priest and the sacrificial business of sin washing and debt payment/forgiveness turned into an industry.

However, as Jerusalem was eventually wiped out because of the backlash from the Roman government due to terrorist activity on the part of zealots; no official forgiveness rituals could proceed and the imagined sins of individuals and the nation as a whole required some outlet for purging.

As most societies do, Jewish society sought some relief for bad conscience through myth, philosophy and procedural bureaucracy.

Christianity provided this relief with the invention of a one-size-fits-all Messiah sacrifice which corresponded to the ritual lamb. Only this time no repetition each year was necessary. This was a debt-paid-in-full payment. The only further follow up would be to acknowledge the payment of the debt by a 3rd party "as often as you do this; do it in remembrance of me" sort of celebration of becoming Debt Free.

Many Jews welcomed this payment and were willing to free their collective conscience with Jesus as the benefactor. If it weren't for the additional add-on changes wrought by Paul (doing away with circumcision, dietary free-for-alls, Gentile invasion of the services, inter-marriage, etc.) Judaism might have been very pleased with the service Jesus provided.

Once the transition from ritual sacrifice to Ransom acceptance turned ugly with Gentiles destroying thousands of years of tradition and piety with overweaning superiorty; the camel's back was broken and a split was inevitable.

The actual writers of the Gospel (whomever they might actually be) sought to bolster the debt forgiveness by creating an argument from Old Testament writings which seem to make the new arrangement an actual Prophetic fulfillment. Matthew especially bends over backwards inventing prophecies which don't fit or which are ad hoc alterations in actual scripture.

The match is bogus. Ask any rabbi today why it is so and they'll tell you.

I know I have.

Narkissos

I think a big turn on the specific issue of suffering / violent death starts with the Maccabean crisis in the 2nd century BC. Some Jews who resist the Hellenisation policy of Antiochos IV Epiphanes are tortured to death. Even a high priest, Onias IV, was killed and he is undoubtedly the "anointed one" Daniel 9 refers to. From this point onward there is an almost unprecedented (the Songs of the Servant in Deutero-Isaiah being a remarkable exception) and increasing apology of martyrdom in Judaism (read 1 and especially 2 Maccabees, for instance chapter 7), which implies reward post-mortem for the martyrs (under the form of elevation to heaven and/or resurrection, the latter under Persian influence). Moreover the martyrs save the nation (this idea is probably already present in the Songs of the Servant).

The later (1st century BC) book of the Wisdom of Solomon has directly influenced the Passion stories in the Gospels. Here we find a description of the martyrdom and justification of the righteous one: Here are 2:12ff and 5:1ff from the NRSV:

Let us lie in wait for the righteous man,
because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions;
he reproaches us for sins against the law,
and accuses us of sins against our training.
He professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child of the Lord.
He became to us a reproof of our thoughts;
the very sight of him is a burden to us,
because his manner of life is unlike that of others,
and his ways are strange.
We are considered by him as something base,
and he avoids our ways as unclean;
he calls the last end of the righteous happy,
and boasts that God is his father.
Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God's child, he will help him,
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
Let us test him with insult and torture,
so that we may find out how gentle he is,
and make trial of his forbearance.
Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
for, according to what he says, he will be protected."(...)

Then the righteous will stand with great confidence
in the presence of those who have oppressed them
and those who make light of their labors.
When the unrighteous see them, they will be shaken with dreadful fear,
and they will be amazed at the unexpected salvation of the righteous.
They will speak to one another in repentance,
and in anguish of spirit they will groan, and say,
"These are persons whom we once held in derision
and made a byword of reproach--fools that we were!
We thought that their lives were madness
and that their end was without honor.
Why have they been numbered among the children of God?
And why is their lot among the saints?

(Here the NRSV refers to the "righteous" in the plural, but the Greek text uses the singular, and could easily be read as referring to a -- the -- "righteous one").

Btw, this Greek work may have been influenced by Plato's description of the righteous one as tortured to death, even crucified, in The Republic (even though the verb Plato uses is not related to stauros).

After the Maccabean crisis the concept of martyrdom and substitutive suffering may have developed more particularly in some Jewish circles: for instance, the "Master of Righteousness" which the Qumran community regards as their founder is often described as suffering for the sake of the rabbim, the multitude (a phrase which is echoed in the NT allusions to Jesus suffering for many, hoi polloi). The Hymns of Qumran echo many earlier Psalms, describing the sufferings of the righteous one (usually without any "substitutive" motif) from this perspective.

Any doctrine can be traced back to a number of sources, but those are interesting tracks for a start.

poppers

Thanks Terry for a refreshing viewpoint. As always, your posts sparkle with lucidity.

Terry

Thanks Terry for a refreshing viewpoint. As always, your posts sparkle with lucidity.

Well, Narkissos' posts have better content--but, I polish mine with Windex!!

Pahpa

The whole sacrificial arrangement of the Mosaic Law is based upon redemption through sacrifice. Add to this the number of prophecies which foretold a coming one that would sacrifice for the sins and transgressions of others. Isaiah 53 is but one example: "Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgression, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brough us peace was upon him and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter... For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken...."

How could the prophecies be any clearer than this?

Redemption of sin by Christ. OT support or made up?

Share this