As we enter the age of apostasy it’s becoming fashionable to re-define Biblical doctrine to align with radical political ideology or change terms like sin to something “softer”; heretics abandon God’s Word for the cult of liberal theology in their rebellion against God.
This week’s attempt to change clear and obvious Biblical teaching:
What we now call the “substitutionary atonement theory” has understood the cross primarily as the beginning of salvation, and not also as the culmination of a radical life lived within an Empire. … We can, however, see the cross in a different interpretative light with regard to the story of Jesus. The cross, rather than being understood as the reason of Jesus’ incarnation, can rather be understood as the culmination of the subversive way he lived as well as the subversive lessons he taught. (italics in original)
Yes, you can change that, but that doesn’t make it correct.
Trying to cram political ideology onto the Bible just doesn’t work … no matter how much verbal twister you play.
In allusions concerning Jesus in the Old Testament, is there one which puts the cross in a subversive and radical political light? Or are they illustrated as a substitute atonement for us?
I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand … that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. (1 Corinthians 15)
… and what Paul warned against replacing.
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! (Galatians 1:6–8 NIV)
The cross is the reason for Jesus’ coming to earth. It is what provides salvation.
Paul called viewing the cross in a different interpretative light a perversion.
Yes, as the author says, we can see the cross under any number of alternative views. But those are not Biblical, and the re-definition was specifically warned against by Paul in the strongest language you could put on paper.
The cross came because of sin, not subversive and radical political ideology. Period.
If being subversive is what the cross is about, Paul was wrong, thus the Bible is wrong, and in error.
Who wants to agree with that?