Wooden Exegesis (1)
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 1 Peter 2:24 ESV
Tree – (For the next few days we will dig into this verse about the cross. The investigation will involve some technical aspects of Peter’s choice of words, but this is necessary in order to see if the claim about the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world matches up with Peter’s view of the cross. It’s complicated. Sorry.)
This verse certainly looks like it settles the issue. Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. All the concern about a literal reading of Revelation 13:8 evaporates. The sacrifice of the Lamb didn’t actually occur before the foundation of the world. At least not physically. God might have had it in the planning stage, but it wasn’t manifested until the cross. Even Peter’s statement in the same letter (1 Peter 1:20) will have to be understood as intention, not execution.
But I’m not quite ready to give up on the exegesis of John 3:14 and Numbers 21:9. If Yeshua really wanted Nicodemus to understand the cross as God’s final act of forgiveness, then why point to the serpent on the pole? Wouldn’t it have made more sense to point to the pole? And since the cross was an unmistakable symbol of pagan power and a complete offense to the Jews, how can we explain its supposed appearance as a substitute for the altar where God’s protocol for redemption was crystal clear? When Paul says that the cross is a stumbling block to the Jews (1 Corinthians 1:23), does he mean that it causes offense because it replaces the altar or does he mean that it causes offense because it is incompatible with the customary expectations of the Messiah? The answer depends on additional exegetical work since either view could explain Paul’s statement. But Peter is a more difficult case. Here he seems to directly and unequivocally equate forgiveness with the cross, since the Greek word xylon is the New Testament word for “cross.” Literally, the word means “wood,” in particular “dry wood as opposed to living, green wood.” That the word is used with reference to the cross is clear from Acts 5:30 and 10:39, although in Revelation 2:7 and 22:2 it is used for the “tree” of life. But certainly Peter has the cross, the dead wooden stake, in mind.
How are we to resolve this? Well, like all good exegesis, we must begin with the context. 1 Peter 2:11 tells us that Peter is addressing Gentiles, not Jews. He acknowledges his readers as “aliens and strangers,” urging them to live in such a manner that their contemporaries have nothing to say but praise for God. He continues with a list of actions that will insure recognition of God’s saving work in their lives because they display observable, peaceable behavior regardless of the circumstances. Peter notes that this may mean suffering without justification, but he commends these actions because they model the same actions and attitude taken by Yeshua. The Messiah’s prior affliction is an “example for you to follow in His steps” (1 Peter 2:21).
Then Peter provides the lynchpin of his exhortation. He uses a rabbinic technique called kal va-chomer (light to heavy). If Yeshua was reviled and mistreated and yet did not respond in like manner, if He lived as a man without sin and yet was judged unfairly, if He bore our sins in His body on the cross, how much more ought we to endure what we suffer on His behalf. After all, we are not sinless. We are not completely trusting. We cannot save others. And yet we are called to be like Him in all these things. The context shows us that the statement about bearing sins in His body on the cross comes in the middle of an argument about living as a witness to God regardless of our circumstances. In other words, Peter is not attempting to give his readers a theology of the cross. He is using the cross as the symbol of final injustice and humiliation endured by the Messiah and, therefore, a call to us to endure our circumstances of injustice and humiliation in order to glorify God. Peter’s purpose is to establish a standard of enduring trust under extreme circumstances. He does this by pointing to the actions of Yeshua, ultimately culminating in the crucifixion. The whole argument is not about being saved. It is about enduring faithfulness in order to glorify God. The paradigm case of unjust suffering is the death of the Messiah by crucifixion, a death was endured without complaint. In fact, it was the sinful acts of men such as ourselves who brought about this tragic injustice. Therefore, if Yeshua can endure the agony of crucifixion unjustly without loss of trust in God, how much more are we expected to endure the lesser suffering in our lives to God’s glory?
This doesn’t resolve the issue, but at least it clarifies Peter’s motivation. It prevents us from thinking that Peter simply endorses our post-Augustinian view of the cross. But more needs to be done. Later.
Topical Index: cross, sin, forgiveness, xylon, 1 Peter 2:24
Skip: I am a bit confused with your comment regarding context:
“How are we to resolve this? Well, like all good exegesis, we must begin with the context. 1 Peter 2:11 tells us that Peter is addressing Gentiles, not Jews.”
I would have thought that the primary recipients of Peter’s letter were in fact Jews. Note in 1 Peter 1:1 he is addressing those sojourners in the “diaspora”. This is similar to James address to the tribes in the “diaspora” Strong 1290, same word. From Galatians we learn that the primary thrust of ministry of James, Peter and John was to the Jews while that of Paul was to the Gentiles. The sojourner/aliens referenced in 1 Peter 2:11 are the same folks Peter mentioned in 1 Peter 1:1. It is the Jews who are the aliens/pilgrims/sojourners in Asia Minor, not the Gentiles. In verse 12 Peter goes on to direct them to “Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles…”
A good point. You are probably correct as I re-read the passage. It doesn’t actually change the emphasis of the text, but if he is addressing Jews, it make the argument stronger. Those who are aliens and strangers among the Gentiles would be recognized as such because they are Jewish and because as Messianic Jews, they stand apart by claim and practice. My mistake. Let’s see what we can do with this now.
But you are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light
1 Peter 2:9
Hi Skip,
Peter has never been easy for me to digest, but it would seem to me if he were speaking to Jews
Then the Jews would be the elect race and gentiles would not be included in the royal priesthood
But not all Jews would be included in the royal priesthood
“For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.” (Heb. 7:14)
However that might still leave the door open for the other order of royal priesthood
To be a Priest of the God Most High of the Order of Melchizedek
But if he were speaking ONLY to Jews, then this would be common knowledge and not worth repeating. I think what we have is a letter to the Messianic believers, Jew or Gentile, who are now in need to instruction regarding their role. Anyway, I will work on this some more.
“then this would be common knowledge”
Hi Skip,
Yes, I was sort of assuming he was speaking to Messianic Jews and Gentiles
And that the Jews were of a different intellectual class regarding the Torah
And potentially from a different tribe:
“priest”, pl. כֹּהֲנִים Kohanim) is the Hebrew word for priest. Jewish Kohanim are traditionally believed and halachically required to be of direct patrilineal descent from the Biblical Aaron.
So the Messianic priesthood of which Peter speaks
Must differ from the priestly descendants of Aaron
And differ from the priestly Order of Melchizedek
Or so it seems to me 🙂
Agreed that the letter is addressed to those in the diaspora, so certainly Jews are in mind. But not just Jews who would have known their role. It seems to me that we could make a good case that Peter is writing to those (Jew and Gentile, perhaps) who have now accepted Yeshua as Messiah (Jew first, I am sure) and are now facing resistance from both the Jewish world and the pagan world. They are strangers in their own land, as well as strangers in the diaspora. Peter addresses them as members of the Kingdom, regardless of ethnicity. But I agree that I should have said, “Jews, most likely, not Gentiles unless we mean those who are now members of the Messianic synagogues”
Skip, I think Paul says the cross is a stumbling Block for Jews because they expected a Messiah that was going to boot the Romans out of Palestine, a strong Military Commander, instead of a suffering servant.
If Yeshua was reviled and mistreated and yet did not respond in like manner………….how much more ought we to endure what we suffer on His behalf………….He is using the cross as the symbol of final injustice and humiliation endured by the Messiah and, therefore, a call to us to endure our circumstances of injustice and humiliation in order to glorify God.
I think this is an example of what you are saying here;
A DAY IN THE LIFE
March 1, 2011
http://ray032.com/2011/03/01/a-day-in-the-life/
While I am certain that some of the Jews were looking for a leader like the one they later found in the Bar Kochba revolt, Boyarin demonstrates that this was not true of all the Jews (and the fact that most of the early followers of Yeshua were Jewish provides further evidence). So, from the beginning we have two views, both Jewish, about Yeshua.
Bravo Skip,
Before I was indoctrinated into reformed theology this is how I interpreted this 1Pe. passage.
It was powerful to except it and live accordingly.
Since I’d become “educated” that power had diminished considerably. What a blessing to be going through a systematic deconstruction of the education that so quickly derailed my simple faith.
Permission to go forward in what He shows me, beginning with the ezer kenegdo, is the most important thing your studies have done for me. Your exegesis of these things, that I had given up for theology, have been my most needed second witness to return to the process of walking in them.
If this is the only thing I glean from this part of the study (and I doubt that very much) it will be an amazing step back into the faith that was shown me by Avinu at the first.
Like the woman in Song of songs I refused to get out of bed and answer the door after having washed my feet in theology. I had lost my first love. The streets of the church have been a very unfriendly journey.
But now I’ve been found again by my Lover and have returned to His to His ways.
The good thing about being derailed is the discernment that comes once you get back on track. 🙂 I’ll never do anything like that again.
יהוה bless you
Just a few notes.
You said: “Here he seems to directly and unequivocally equate forgiveness with the cross,” You seem to place the emphasis on “the cross”. To me the emphasis is on “His death.”
He bore our sins in His body by dying.
Correct me if I am wrong, but does it matter that Peter is overall argument is about righteous living? If one denies a premise, the argument is denied as well. It still is true that He bore our sins on the tree.
I also wonder what Rom 3:25 & 26 is all about:
“whom God did set forth a mercy seat, through the faith in his blood, for the shewing forth of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the bygone sins in the forbearance of God– for the shewing forth of His righteousness in the present time, for His being righteous, and declaring him righteous who is of the faith of Jesus.”
Doesn’t this mean that the actual death of Yeshua had to occur to make the sacrifice that was made from before the foundation of the world a reality? Or that it actually had to be manifested?
As you said it looks that this is what Peter is saying:
1Pe 1:18 having known that, not with corruptible things–silver or gold–were ye redeemed from your foolish behaviour delivered by fathers, 19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and unspotted–Christ’s– 20 foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, and manifested in the last times because of you, 21 who through him do believe in God, who did raise out of the dead, and glory to him did give, so that your faith and hope may be in God.
I have been doing a study on the Passover recently. Starting on the 10th of Nisan a lamb was set aside. Four days later it was slaughtered. Three days after that Yeshua rose from the dead. Together we have a 7 day period corresponding to 7000 years of human history. So in a sense the lamb was “ordained” to be slaughtered 4 days before it died. It had been set aside. Is this not consistent with what Peter is saying in verse 20 as “foreknown”. The actual death occurs on 14th Nisan but the separation unto death preceded that by 4 days. Interesting that the Talmud makes reference to 2000 years before Torah, 2000 years under Torah, and 2000 years of the “days of Mashiach”. (then 1000 years of Shabbat). They actually were expecting Messiah when Yeshua arrived… but He didn’t meet their expectations. I pray that the Jews will indeed say “Blessed is He who comes in the Name of Yahweh” before the remaining “days of Mashiach” run out.
I love complicated! I am also following Irene, and will be able to send something soon.
About the cross, I was reading the book of revelation and I noticed something I had not seen before.
I noticed the references to “the Lamb” were consistently mentioned separately from the other names. The Lamb’s wife, the Lamb’s book of life, the Lord God almighty and the Lamb, The Lamb is it’s light. There are many more that I have not listed.
The Hebrew/Jewish people wanted a “king like every other nation”. They were looking for everything that was powerful and glorious, on and on. They missed the day of their visitation because they had quit worshipping their God and forgot what He looked like, (a Lamb), (the cross)
I have not seen where it might mention the resurrection of the Lamb before the foundation of the world? The King of the Jews came not to die, but to RESURRECT!! Once He came and they rejected their lowly messiah on the cross, only then would He manifest Himself as the true King. To the Jew first, opportunity knocked they did not like the sound of the cross, especially since He said He came to show us the way. (by way of the cross) The king is the same, the priesthood has changed and the nations of the world have access to the Lamb, the one who becomes King! It is a hidden kingdom of upside down and backward victories. But Hebrew/Jewish destiny and purpose has not changed, they are and will become a Praise on the earth. Let all who bless israel be blessed and let the Lamb, their husband, reign with her forever, and may every knee bow to the desire of every heart-the love of the Lamb and His wife. The light of the world.
Why point to the serpent on the pole?
From “shadow” to “substance..”
From things “foreshadowed” to things “fulfilled.” From things before concealed and now with the advent of our ADONAI, these things are revealed.
~ For He has made Him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God “in Him” ~ Yes. “in the Messiah,” Jesus of Nazareth- the God-Man.
~ For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God ~ (1 Corinthians 1.18)
~ This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief ~ (1 Timothy 1.15)
Worthy of “all” acceptation? Do the Jews need to be saved? Saved from what? Do the Gentiles need to be saved? Saved from what? If the Messiah came into the world to save sinners and “if” (according to the scriptures) “all” have sinned, do “all” stand in need of a Savior? Or is He Savior to the Jew only? or to the Gentiles?
What is the interpretation of “Because God so loved the world..” Does this include the Jew?- and also the Gentile?
What is the interpretation of “whosoever will” may come and drink of the water of life? To whom has this invitation been issued? To the Jew only? or is it also to the Gentile?
Who needs to be “saved?” and who needs a Savior?
What was the message of Rabbi Sha’ul when he said ~ But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our LORD Jesus Christ, (our ADONAI Yeshua HaMashiach) by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world?
Brother Paul, why the cross? Was (is) the cross of Christ necessary?
~ Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved ~ (Romans 10.1)
But Paul, aren’t these people (Israel) God’s chosen ones? Why do the people of Israel need to be saved if they are the “chosen ones?” And what does the cross of the Chosen One- the cross of (the) Christ have to do with them? Do the Jews, the chosen ones -need (also) to be “saved?”
When Christ said “no man” comes to the Father but by Me- did this seemingly blanket statement include the Jew and the Gentile? Again.. “all” have sinned? Nicodemus, are you included? What about Adam? Abraham? Moses? David? Isaiah? Peter? … me.
~ Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Is the cross of the Chosen One still “applicable?” or “viable” today?
May I also “kneel at the cross?” May I (also) come to Him and be saved? Is His invitation still extended on this day,-to “whosoever will?”
~ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek ~ (Romans 1.16)
This is some very “happy news,”for everyone.
To add in closing:remember it said “there remains a veil”. Now the veil is torn, not by death but by resurrection! Making a way for us to ascend, or did He just “show us the way?” Was it always possible to ascend trusting in the blood of the Lamb? Was the veil torn before the foundations of the world? If so, it must have been torn when Lucifer was kicked out, a tear was made? Maybe these two events were done simultaneously (The Lamb slain, and Lucifer getting kicked out of heaven?)
I wonder what would have happened if the nation of Israel would have received Jesus as their messiah before His natural death and resurrection? How would the gentiles be saved? Or would the Jewish people have ruled over all of us with their Jewish King?
Some things remain a mystery until our eyes are opened to believe/receive truth with our heart. Be not offended with the Bridegroom, just let Him in. One thing I know, things are not the way they appear. You cannot receive King Jesus as your savior, He must be received as the Lamb, so when He reveals Himself this time, He comes as a Lion!! and it will be too late- May the whole world hear the sound of the bride and the bridegroom singing, faintly, as a Lamb in love. The incense of the new priesthood. If you will take this cup also, you are saying “I do” to the journey through the cross and through the double doors, and beyond. He alone is worthy. What is the seventh seal?
I hope you answer all these questions-
I wonder what would have happened if the nation of Israel would have received Jesus as their messiah before His natural death and resurrection? How would the gentiles be saved? Or would the Jewish people have ruled over all of us with their Jewish King?
Hi Sharon,
One thing we know for sure is that what we got was God’s will
So we might as well look on the upside and be grateful 🙂
The historical scenario was transformed into The Seventh Seal
IMO the greatest movie ever made
Director: Ingmar Bergman
Writers: Ingmar Bergman (play), Ingmar Bergman (screenplay)
Stars: Max von Sydow, Gunnar Björnstrand, Bengt Ekerot | See full cast and crew
The Seventh Seal (1957)
A man seeks answers about life, death, and the existence of God as he plays chess against the Grim Reaper during the Black Plague.
Director: Ingmar Bergman
Stars: Max von Sydow, Gunnar Björnstrand, Bengt Ekerot
But if Yeshua is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, this question by Sharon is a moot point. That’s my point. There is NO difference between the way Abraham is saved and the way I am saved. The cross is not about salvation. It is about removing the CONSEQUENCES of sin.
“The cross is not about salvation. It is about removing the CONSEQUENCES of sin.”
Amein!
Ro 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
He redeemed us from death which are the CONSEQUENCES of sin.
Co.2:13 And you, being dead through your sins and the evil condition of your flesh, to you, I say, he gave life together with him, and forgiveness of all our sins;
14 Having put an end to the handwriting of the law which was against us, taking it out of the way by nailing it to his cross;
Here we see the reformers concept of putting off AND putting on. He bought us back from death and gave us life by nailing the record of our sins to the cross. IMO 🙂 Or is that too simple?
Did He just “show us the way?
Hmmm
As I sit on my couch looking at the painting over on the right-hand side of the room
The abstract modernist painting by Jasper Johns of the crucifixion conjures up
All sorts of extraordinarily interesting concepts with concrete, colorful, significations
But to be perfectly honest and possibly wrong, the theological consequences
Of sin and salvation, never enter my mind
For me, Jesus shows us how to live an “eternal” life and exactly what it’s worth
This is not all that Messiah did when he walked the earth. The cross was the end of His work as the Lamb of God. When He returns He will look very much like the Angel of death to those of us who have not applied the blood of the covenant. I’m inclined to look at the blood shed for us on the cross as the blood of the covenant that redeems us from that Day. We will have work to do after that.
Ex. 12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.
13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you when I smite the land of Egypt.
I’ve never heard this called a covenant but it sure contains the elements of it. I have been immersed in this for a long time. God saves Israel from Himself to create a nation of priests for Himself. Doesn’t that sound like the second coming?
I can’t get past the idea that the lambs in Egypt were slain as a redemption for the firstborn of Israel and anyone else that would obey the word of YHVH. It was for an event that began a process (covenant?) for the people. When Moses presented this people to YHVH at the Mount they sinned and broke the covenant that He had spoken to them, before the tablets ever made it back down the hill. So YHVH gave them a renewed covenant that was the same as the one they broke but the priesthood was limited to the tribe of Levi and the clan of Aaron. Passover began a process. It was not the end of anything (except Death).
Or is that too simple?
Hi Pam,
I’m a big believer in KISS
And tend to think it all comes down
To one prayer
Our Father
Who art in heaven
Hallowed be thy name
Thy kingdom come
Thy will be done
On earth
As it is in heaven
Give us this day
Our daily bread
And forgive us our trespasses
As we forgive those
Who trespass against us
And lead us not
Into temptation
But deliver us from evil
Amen
Funny you should mention that here.
It’s the conclusion of my post for this morning.
How many of us recite these words all our lives and never really think about what we are saying?
See my reply to Michael on this question about the Gentiles.
Thank you Michael(and skip)
I see it is available through Netflix, it looks dark night of the soul, hope he see’s the Light.
I plan on watching it before easter:) I doubt if this is what the seventh seal is really about.
Salvation is a moot issue- you are right. So on to the greater things! The wedding feast?
In the Jewish scriptures, are there any reference to the resurrection happening before the foundations of the world?
If it had not occurred prior to the natural event on earth, then this is a new thing!! This produced a new thing, it added something to heaven that was not there before-a King, a Bridegroom King ready and waiting as His Father prepares His Bride and their dwelling place. There would be no Bride before the Lamb resurrected and became King for her. It is about the Holy seed of Abraham, that is why the enemy has tried to destroy the seed and even when the evil angels came and used women as a host to procreate trying to destroy the pure seed of the
Messiah. Abortion and Homosexuality are both about destroying the seed of Abraham from multiplying.
Removing the consequences of sin would mean the torn veil, access back into the garden, but not direct access, you must pass through the veil and that takes us to the issue of Authority. The direction is up since it was torn from top to bottom, and so we must “come up” . It was the veil that kept us from our rest in Him. As we died with Him, we are invited to also resurrect with Him. It seems salvation was His work on our behalf, resurrection into union with Him is voluntary. Maybe that is why there were 5 wise virgins and 5 foolish virgins with no oil in there lamps.
This world has nothing to offer the true Bride of Christ, seductions will eventually loose all power as the snake is exposed as the one who was and is and who’s end will come!! come quickly Lord Jesus.
Just a quick word off topic. Since forever it has been the consensus of authority to be autocratic, whether civil or religious, such that the pronouncements of it’s ministers and/or administers is writ in stone. So that even when clearly in error the reaction to correction has most often been denial and censure if not actual dis- fellowship (or worse) of the”rebellious” offender.
It is always a blest and refreshing breath of fresh air when a teaching servant is actually humble enough to acknowledge an error. Kudos Skip. I may not always agree with you have my respect.