Misunderstood Concepts--- Atonement

[Mr E]

@Mr E

So is the covering a good thing, or a bad thing?

I was always taught that having my sins covered was good. But you seem to be suggesting that the covering is a barrier between God and man, in a bad way. Have I misunderstood?

It's a wonderful thing, but it really is a barrier at the same time. This is easily understood with respect to that amniotic sac. The baby is it's own person. It has it's own blood and organs and DNA that is entirely different than the mother's-- (the host). If not for that covering the baby could not form or function or exist-- it would be treated by the mother's immune system as a foreign body (which it is) and attacked.

In the spiritual sense, the barrier (or covering) both protects and separates us from a Holy God. Our corrupted flesh is completely incompatible with His Holy Spirit. The division is between spirit and flesh. Between the spiritual and the physical, between God and man.

In Genesis, we see that covering as a membrane-- skin. It keeps the inside inside, and the outside outside. I'm speaking in archetypes where there is an inner man that is spiritual in nature and an outer man that is physical. That inner man must pass through that veil (shedding it) in order to be united with God, who is spirit and not flesh.

 

[Mr E]

There is another aspect of atonement to consider. This covering was conceived to cover our guilt and shame-- our nakedness. Before sin was found in us, there was no such thing as the idea that some part of us was naked or shameful- but that changed when we discovered there was something corruptible within-- that our spirit could be seduced by the flesh, and that's exactly what happened. That's what made the covering necessary, and in a sense it was originally a cover-up, to hide our error. But then, it became both a covering and a dividing line requiring the shedding of blood in the physical sense and a spiritual sacrifice in the heavenly sense. There are no lambs or rams in heaven.

 

[Waiting on him]

Yes, just like that. It's easy to see Jesus as the man in the middle on that cross. The cross (Jesus on that cross) becomes the membrane that both divides and bridges between two worlds. He is the dividing line. And that is the reconciliation as well as the atonement. That the earthly is shed like a garment left behind and that the spirit is reunited with the Father.

Thank you!

Colossians 2:13-14 KJV
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; [14] Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

 

[Mr E]

I'd like to take this deeper. Maybe try to address some of the big questions that rarely get addressed.

Things like-- "Where did evil come from?" "Why does sin exist?"

We are told the story, as if it's the beginning, but is it? Where did Satan come from-- that serpent, who suddenly appears..... why would God allow, permit or create such a scenario-- did He plan it? Did it catch Him unaware, unprepared or off-guard?

 

[Wick Stick]

It's a wonderful thing, but it really is a barrier at the same time. This is easily understood with respect to that amniotic sac. The baby is it's own person. It has it's own blood and organs and DNA that is entirely different than the mother's-- (the host). If not for that covering the baby could not form or function or exist-- it would be treated by the mother's immune system as a foreign body (which it is) and attacked.

In the spiritual sense, the barrier (or covering) both protects and separates us from a Holy God. Our corrupted flesh is completely incompatible with His Holy Spirit. The division is between spirit and flesh. Between the spiritual and the physical, between God and man.

In Genesis, we see that covering as a membrane-- skin. It keeps the inside inside, and the outside outside. I'm speaking in archetypes where there is an inner man that is spiritual in nature and an outer man that is physical. That inner man must pass through that veil (shedding it) in order to be united with God, who is spirit and not flesh.

It's an interesting question you raise. One I hadn't considered.

Your example makes sense to me. My brain immediately jumps to Deuteronomy 5:

23 "So it was, when you heard the voice from the midst of the darkness, while the mountain was burning with fire, that you came near to me, all the heads of your tribes and your elders. 24 "And you said: 'Surely the LORD our God has shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice from the midst of the fire. We have seen this day that God speaks with man; yet he [still] lives. 25 'Now therefore, why should we die? For this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the LORD our God anymore, then we shall die. 26 'For who [is there] of all flesh who has heard the voice of the living God speaking from the midst of the fire, as we [have], and lived? 27 'You go near and hear all that the LORD our God may say, and tell us all that the LORD our God says to you, and we will hear and do [it].'

The Levitical priesthood was there to make a covering, to shield Israel from God. And He would have destroyed them, they were sacrificing to idols in the minutes before this...

That priesthood has been replaced, but if it's replaced, then it stands to reason that there is still a covering to be made...

 

[Mr E]

It's an interesting question you raise. One I hadn't considered.

Your example makes sense to me. My brain immediately jumps to Deuteronomy 5:

23 "So it was, when you heard the voice from the midst of the darkness, while the mountain was burning with fire, that you came near to me, all the heads of your tribes and your elders. 24 "And you said: 'Surely the LORD our God has shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice from the midst of the fire. We have seen this day that God speaks with man; yet he [still] lives. 25 'Now therefore, why should we die? For this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the LORD our God anymore, then we shall die. 26 'For who [is there] of all flesh who has heard the voice of the living God speaking from the midst of the fire, as we [have], and lived? 27 'You go near and hear all that the LORD our God may say, and tell us all that the LORD our God says to you, and we will hear and do [it].'

The Levitical priesthood was there to make a covering, to shield Israel from God. And He would have destroyed them, they were sacrificing to idols in the minutes before this...

That priesthood has been replaced, but if it's replaced, then it stands to reason that there is still a covering to be made...

View attachment 38189

Oh bother! Things only get more and more sticky from here.

The priesthood is a whole 'nother track.... designed to be an intercessor or mediator, or the go-between, the priesthood is heavenly and was never intended to be earthly. Did Jesus come as a priest? Not on earth, he didn't. The priesthood, almost from the get-go became a family business. Jesus in his mission, among so many other things- tore down that separating veil and showed the way back to the Father.

But again-- that's another story.

 

[Mr E]

To review- there was an original transgression that occurred, offending God. A covering was sought to cover our guilt and shame and to provide something suitable a sacrifice was required. As a consequence we were sent away from God’s presence.

It’s foundational Christian thought—-

1. Our sin separates us from God
2. A sacrifice was required to make atonement

 

[Mr E]

I'm just going to let that hang for a bit. But that is what we Christians call 'theological.' God - logical. Is it? Is our understanding and what has become our religious practice, logical? Is it an accurate understanding? History suggests, no. In fact, the whole priesthood came into existence to manage the entire sacrificial system that was spawned from this concept and Jesus was sent to correct the record, abolishing the sacrifice of animals and putting an end to the disgusting practice and the temple corruption that had ensued.

How did we get from naked and unafraid, in God's presence to ashamed and hiding alone, -separated from Him? That's not what was intended.

The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” The LORD God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found.

So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man’s side and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.

 

[Mr E]

It does raise a question though....

Bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, said the man... this one will be called 'woman' for she was taken out of man.

And for this reason a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife and they become one family.

Huh? For what reason?

They were naked and unafraid. A man and his wife. There were no children. There was no father or mother to leave-- was there?

 

[Waiting on him]

They were naked and unafraid. A man and his wife. There were no children. There was no father or mother to leave-- was there?

Galatians 4:26 KJV
But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

 

[Mr E]

Galatians 4:26 KJV
But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Fantastic. I love it when folks connect some dots. Paul, in this letter recognizes that the heavenly Jerusalem is our Mother-- land of the free, home of the brave, while physical Jerusalem below is the home of the slave.

So born from above is NOT physical. We do have a heavenly Father and a heavenly Mother-- in a manner of speaking- our divine estate above, which we left.... or were otherwise separated from as a sort of punishment. Atonement/reconciliation is required in order to return.

for this reason a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife and they become one family.

 

[Wick Stick]

It does raise a question though....

Bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, said the man... this one will be called 'woman' for she was taken out of man.

And for this reason a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife and they become one family.

Because they are already one flesh.

 

[Mr E]

Because they are already one flesh.

In the spiritual realm, 'a man' refers to a spiritual man. His Father and Mother are spiritual (not flesh). Spirit gives birth to spirit.

Consider-- a spiritual man leaves his spiritual Father and his spiritual mother and unites with his wife....

His wife was bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh and she was taken out of him. Then he leaves his heavenly estate and unites with his wife and the two of them become one family.

 

[Wick Stick]

In the spiritual realm, 'a man' refers to a spiritual man. His Father and Mother are spiritual (not flesh). Spirit gives birth to spirit.

Consider-- a spiritual man leaves his spiritual Father and his spiritual mother and unites with his wife....

His wife was bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh and she was taken out of him. Then he leaves his heavenly estate and unites with his wife and the two of them become one family.

No such thing as a spiritual mother. In ancient thinking, the material/concrete is always feminine, and the spiritual/abstract is always masculine. Our word material is even derived from the Latin word mater (mother).

To say that a man leaves his father and mother could be interpreted as leaving behind his self-identity according to nurture and nature. It's probably not the meaning the author intended, but certainly within the allowable meanings of the words, according to grammar.

 

[Mr E]

No such thing as a spiritual mother. In ancient thinking, the material/concrete is always feminine, and the spiritual/abstract is always masculine. Our word material is even derived from the Latin word mater (mother).

To say that a man leaves his father and mother could be interpreted as leaving behind his self-identity according to nurture and nature. It's probably not the meaning the author intended, but certainly within the allowable meanings of the words, according to grammar.

Maybe you can expound on your understanding for me? Can we agree that the text is speaking about Adam and Eve?

Who would be the mother and father they left to be united as man and wife?

 

[Waiting on him]

No such thing as a spiritual mother. In ancient thinking, the material/concrete is always feminine, and the spiritual/abstract is always masculine. Our word material is even derived from the Latin word mater (mother).

To say that a man leaves his father and mother could be interpreted as leaving behind his self-identity according to nurture and nature. It's probably not the meaning the author intended, but certainly within the allowable meanings of the words, according to grammar.

Do you mean like Judaism was how they identified themselves with god?

Maybe what Jesus was referencing as their mother and father was simply their cultural narratives or their national way of viewing god?

This would somewhat make since, and Jesus being their blood-born rightful anointed of God king would be in a righteous position to put off any misconceptions they would have had as a people.

 

[Waiting on him]

No such thing as a spiritual mother. In ancient thinking, the material/concrete is always feminine, and the spiritual/abstract is always masculine. Our word material is even derived from the Latin word mater (mother).

To say that a man leaves his father and mother could be interpreted as leaving behind his self-identity according to nurture and nature. It's probably not the meaning the author intended, but certainly within the allowable meanings of the words, according to grammar.

Paul defines for us what a MAN in the first century church was.

Ephesians 4:13-15 KJV
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: [14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; [15] But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

I see here that it’s Christ in them brought to maturity.

 

[Wick Stick]

Maybe you can expound on your understanding for me? Can we agree that the text is speaking about Adam and Eve?

Who would be the mother and father they left to be united as man and wife?

Genesis is a compilation of books. Some pious person millennia ago tried to put them in chronological order, and that was a mistake because they don't all run together chronologically. That's because they have (at least) two sources.

This section, The Book of the Generations of Adam (Genesis 2:5 - 5:2), has been placed after The Generations of the Heavens and of the Earth (Gen 1:1 - 2:4), and if these two run together chronologically and have the same author, as Christianity traditionally holds, that makes Adam and Eve the first people in creation. The verse here makes no literal sense, because Adam had no parents to leave.

I don't think these two sections have the same author, though. And I don't think they run together chronologically. I think that The Book of the Generations of Adam comes to us from the Edomites, as the story of their eponymous ancestor, Edom... ahem... Adam. Those are the same name in Hebrew. The translators have done a little work to separate them for us.

Since we have the rest of the book, we know more about Edom from the other account, where he is usually called Esau. His parents were Isaac and Rebekah, and...

Genesis 26:
And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite, which were a grief of mind unto Isaac and to Rebekah.

Esau's parents didn't get along with his wives, and he DID leave them and move away.

 

[Mr E]

The verse here makes no literal sense, because Adam had no parents to leave.

It doesn't seem to make sense, I agree with you that far. If we ignore that there is a spiritual/heavenly Adam, and it only refers to a physical man on earth, it would make no sense at all. But to look only at the physical realm is like looking at a shadow of what is real, or trying to cipher what software does by looking at 1's and 0's. You might get a semblance or perceive the general shape and flavor, but you simply don't ever approach reality, or what we might call the full picture. Ask a young child to draw his mommy and daddy and you'll get stick figures. And that young one has no conception of where babies come from, or how it all might work in reality, but he knows his little sister in some sense did indeed come out of his mommy's stomach. He perceives truth, without understanding it. He recognizes nature because it's natural.

Gen 5 gives us the generations of Adam to Noah.

Gen 6 picks up right where Gen 5 leaves off. Gen 9 tells us that from Noah's three sons and their wives, the whole earth is populated.

Gen 16 introduces a guy named Abraham and follows his family line. (it's all pretty chronological)

Gen 36 accounts the generations of Edom. And this you contend is actually what Genesis 2- Gen 5 is referencing? --I can't help you there.

But it does seem that you do understand what "leaving your father and mother" must mean in the physical sense. What might if refer to in a spiritual sense? You say- there is...

No such thing as a spiritual mother. In ancient thinking, the material/concrete is always feminine, and the spiritual/abstract is always masculine. Our word material is even derived from the Latin word mater (mother).

To say that a man leaves his father and mother could be interpreted as leaving behind his self-identity according to nurture and nature. It's probably not the meaning the author intended, but certainly within the allowable meanings of the words, according to grammar

According to nurture and nature, you do seem to understand where babies physically come from. Does God violate nature? If spirit gives birth to spirit (and flesh to flesh) -in the spiritual sense, where do babies come from?

 

[Waiting on him]

Galatians 4:28-29 KJV
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. [29] But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.