Did Jesus die as a martyr? - More problems with Penal Substitution

Martyrdom refers to being persecuted unto death for the sake of serving and witnessing to God. It is one of the highest honors precisely because it involves sacrificing your very life for a higher cause. This concept is important when thinking about the Atonement of Jesus, because it establishes the principle that God is pleased by faithful obedience, not by death itself. Nor does martyrdom in any way suggest God is upset with you or punishing you. Here are some verses to consider:

Brothers, became imitators of the churches that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets. (1 Thess 2:14-15)

Paul is saying that Jesus was persecuted unto death, as were the prophets. And Christians are not to be shocked if they experience the same. This makes little sense within the Protestant view of the cross (Penal Substitution), since in that view Jesus was judicially punished, not persecuted unto death Penal Substitution is contrary to the character of persecuted/martyr, and it also makes no sense if Christians are expected to face a similar form of death. 

Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints. (Psalm 116:15)
From oppression and violence he redeems their life, and precious is their blood in his sight. (Psalm 72:14) 

Why is the death of saints a "precious" thing to God? This makes no sense within a Penal Substitution framework, since nobody aside from Jesus would be capable of this. But within the Catholic-Biblical understanding of atonement and sacrifice, the lesson here is plain: precious in God's sight is the act of offering up their life for his sake, particularly due to martyrdom.

and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (Heb 12:24) 

Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. (Matthew 23:34-35)

Why does the blood of Abel "speak" so eloquently to God? Because Abel gave up his life in service to God. Abel was not acting as a Penal Substitute, but rather as a witness (which is precisely what the term "martyr" means in Greek, and used in that way in places like Acts 22:20; Rev 2:13; 17:6). And since Jesus is being compared to Abel here, the comparison only works if their death/offerings were of the same kind. The term "righteous blood" can only refer to their deaths being unjust, and thus their merit before God comes from their martyrdom. One other interesting note is that in the Matthew 23:34 reference above, Jesus says that the Jews will end up killing and "crucifying" some of the prophets and apostles. This is strange if the whole point of Penal Substitution was that Jesus was crucified in our place, taking the punishment we deserved. You'd think this is the last thing Jesus would say, or that the Father would allow. 

For another great example, consider my recent post on how this martyr theme factors into Romans 3:25 and Isaiah 53. In these verses and other posts I've done on Penal Substitution, I don't think Protestantism is honest enough with itself to see that their view of the Cross is quite simply wrong, and even twisted. But hopefully if we can get the word out we can change minds.

Did Paul really think his Jewish opponents saw themselves as being sinless?

Standard Protestant teaching says that the reason why works cannot justify us is "because we are sinners," which is another way of saying that if we were not sinners, then works could indeed save us. As I have noted elsewhere on this blog (e.g. here), Paul never suggests works could save even if we were sinless. In this post, I want to add another detail which goes against this Protestant idea, namely looking at whether the Jews ever considered themselves sinless. I will now turn to the Scriptures to show that the Jews clearly did consider themselves sinners, which thus totally undermines the Protestant Perspective on Paul.

As I was looking around for some Protestant quotes on this matter, I came across this gem from R.C. Sproul's ministry: 

God’s people were justified by faith alone under the Mosaic covenant even though some verses in the Law say the doing of its precepts brings righteousness and life. One of these is Leviticus 18:5, which Paul quotes in Galatians 3:12. We might conclude from a superficial reading of the Mosaic law that old covenant people were saved by works, not faith. Some Christians have held this position. However, the Torah shows us that while it reveals God’s righteous standard, our Creator knew that sinners could never save themselves by doing the Law. For example, the inclusion of sacrifices to atone for sin presupposes that the people will fail and have to look for another way to be justified.

The first sentence here says that under the Law people were justified by faith alone "even though" the Law says you are justified by works. How could the Bible say justification is by faith alone if it teaches justification by works? This claim is a blatant contradiction in thought, which is sadly so characteristic of the PPP. But that's not all! The quote also goes on to say that the Law included instructions on performing sacrifices to atone for sins, since it was obvious that nobody could be sinless. What Jew would go around considering themselves sinless when they were fully aware of the long chapters in Leviticus dedicated to instructions on atoning for sin? Why would God issue a Law that simultaneously demanded sinlessness and a means to atone for sin? Did a single Jew on the annual Day of Atonement, dedicated to atoning for all the sins of the Israelite nation, seriously think they were without sin?

The implicit Filioque?

As I was reading up on the first two Ecumenical Councils, I came across a fascinating tidbit of information from Protestant historian Philip Schaff's famous Nicene Fathers series. For those who don't know, the Nicene Creed we recite each Sunday actually came to us from two Ecumenical Councils. Basically, the First Ecumenical Council held in Nicaea in AD325 gave us the 'first half' of the Creed, up to the words "and we believe in the Holy Spirit," but stopped there. Later on at the Second Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in AD381, we got the 'second half' of the Nicene Creed, which added everything including and after the words "and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father". What is fascinating is that it turns out these Creeds were not just invented on the spot at these Councils, but rather they existed in a few different 'versions' and were basically used as a 'statement of faith' for one's Baptism. This is an important historical detail because it means that the Filioque - the part where the Creed says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son" - despite not being part of the Nicene Creed of either the Council of 325 nor 381, should not be automatically taken as a rejection of the idea itself. Nor should having the Filioque clause within the Creed be taken as 'tampering' with the Creed. (I wrote about the Filioque taught in Scripture in an older post, if you're interested.)

The best testimony for this comes from a significant Early Church Father, St Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis (Cyprus). He lived from AD310-403 and is held in high regard by both East and West. He lived during both Councils but he did not attend either, making his testimony even more significant. The passage from Schaff's series says that Epiphanius used a creed as early as AD374 (i.e. a decade prior to the Second Ecumenical Council), which none the less was nearly identical to the Nicene Creed as we know it. Epiphanius tells us that this was handed on from ancient times, even from the Apostles themselves, and that it is required knowledge to get Baptized. This means that prior to the Second Ecumenical Council in AD381, certain regions were already using a longer Creed than the one from AD325. Yet we would not say these regions were 'tampering' with the Creed, since they were expounding on it without changing its meaning. 

Guardian Angels and Heavenly Intercession

I have been very busy with life so I haven't had much time to blog, but I do have a few interesting posts in the works that I think readers will enjoy. Until I get the time to post them, I'll post this brief reflection on the reality of Guardian Angels and their relation to Intercession. 

In Matthew 18:10, Jesus says: "Beware of despising one of these little ones; for I say to you that their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven." In this passing verse we see an affirmation of something most of us hardly ever think about: the reality of guardian angels, at least for believers. The implications of such a reality are actually quite astonishing when you think about it: you have a spiritual being assigned to assist you on your salvation journey. 

Many interesting other insights arise once you recognize this basic truth, and some significant issues arise for the Protestant tradition (which typically neglects the issue of guardian angels entirely). Having a Guardian Angel means you aren't alone, and in God's best judgment, you need this angel to help you navigate life. That's a major swipe against the Protestant notion of Salvation by Faith Alone and Eternal Security, for it suggests your journey is dangerous and thus you need heavenly assistance. This would hardly be necessary if your salvation were secure. Furthermore, the angels here are described as 'beholding the Father's face in heaven', which means the Guardian Angel in some sense is constantly reporting back to God and receiving instructions of how to proceed. This is the essence of the Catholic dogma of intercession of the saints in heaven. A Protestant might say the angel cannot communicate with you. But it would be kind of silly and nonsensical to think the angel couldn't hear you if you called out to it, especially for help, and there are instances in Scripture where angels have conversations with men (e.g. the Annunciation). A Protestant might further object and say this only applies to angels but not to saints in heaven. Well, at that point it just seems even more desperate, for the essential matter is affirmed - i.e., heavenly intercession, without undermining Jesus' mediation - and so the Protestant would be forced to say the saints in heaven are effectively unconscious, rather than the reality, which is that the saints in heaven are more alive than ever and are rejoicing along with the angels. Also, if "little ones" here refers to children, which 18:2-6 strongly suggests, then this verse would be an implicit testimony to Infant Baptism, as it would mean these children would have to be members of God's Church family in order to have their Guardian Angel, rather than having to wait until they are older to "accept Jesus for themselves".

Lastly, a recent Protestant convert to Catholicism pointed out a particular irony in the very famous "Doxology" which most Protestants have historically enjoyed praying: "Praise God, from whom all blessings flow; Praise him, all creatures here below; Praise him above, ye heavenly host; Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." What else would "praise him above you heavenly host" mean except you praying to angels/saints? It is biblical after all: "Praise him all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps 148:2) It seems like Protestants just don't think things through.

We must stop being the whores of goat demons - More Problems with Penal Substitution

Another one of the developing insights I've recently come across was found in a passing sentence in the book of Leviticus, chapter 17. This is the famous chapter where God explains why blood is 'special' and why the Israelites were forbidden to eat blood. This is one of the most important chapters in the Old Testament, since it speaks on the heart of the sacrificial system. This insight should radically alter your perception of animal sacrifices, such that you will see Penal Substitution truly has no place. 

I begin by quoting the relevant portion of Leviticus 17: 

1 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the people of Israel and say to them, This is the thing that the Lord has commanded. 3 If any one of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp, 4 and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the Lord in front of the tabernacle of the Lord, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people. 5 This is to the end that the people of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they sacrifice in the open field, that they may bring them to the Lord, to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and sacrifice them as sacrifices of peace offerings to the Lord. 6 And the priest shall throw the blood on the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting and burn the fat for a pleasing aroma to the Lord. 7 So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after whom they whore. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations.

Before the chapter goes onto speak on the issue of sacrificial blood, it begins by speaking on the location of where sacrifices are taking place. In this passage, God commands all animals which were slain for sacrifice to be brought to the priestly tent to be offered upon the altar, and anyone who fails to do this will be subject to severe punishment. Why is this such a big deal? Because God wanted to stop the Israelites from sacrificing "to goat demons, after whom they whore" themselves. This bizarre statement actually contains a crucial insight into what Sacrifices were all about: Liturgical Worship! Man's chief goal has always been to give God the form of Worship which God desires to receive; anything else is technically idolatry. In this case, the lesson seems to be that while in Egypt, the Israelites had picked up some bad religious habits, particularly offering worship to animal-idols, in this case a goat-deity. This got me reflecting and researching, which led me to some further insights by some Catholic Biblical scholars.