Tags
I struggled with a title so I just let some of my research guide me to it. The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible’s Concise Concordance gives eight references for ‘redeem'(s)(ed)(ing). The Amplified Bible’s concordance has twenty-two references for (s)(ed)(ing), with an additional seven for (er). The King James Study Bible’s Concordance with Word Studies offers thirty-six references for (s)(ed)(ing) and ten references for (er). That’s a lot of reading and cross-referencing, folks.
The Bing online dictionary gives these as the definition: 1. Compensate for faults or bad aspect of (something) – (self) do something that compensates for poor past performance or behavior; (of a person) atone or make amends for (error or evil); save (someone) from sin, error, or evil. 2. Gain or regain possession of (something in exchange for payment) 3. Fulfill or carry out (a pledge or promise)
If we look at the work on the Cross, Jesus has done all of these things. He compensated for our faults and bad aspects. When God created man, He created them exactly the way he wanted man to be. Man was, at that instant, perfect. It didn’t take us long to ruin that and fall from where we were meant to be to where we are today. We’re very good – expert, even – in messing up our lives.
He compensated for our past (and present!) poor performance. There are any number of stories or videos or podcasts or memes of ‘men behaving badly’, ‘women behaving badly’, ‘babies behaving badly’ and we chuckle and laugh and nod our heads because – that’s us. We know that behavior; we’ve had it all our lives. We try to atone for our errors and make amends to folks we may have hurt along the way but we’re not quite as accomplished at that as we are at making a mess of things. Like the mote/plank idea, we try to save loved ones, friends and family – and sometimes complete strangers – from the sin, error, or evil we see in their lives.
To regain God’s possession of us, Jesus paid with his life, to buy us back to God. Now, clearly, this is very simply put for readability but you get the idea here. His death on the cross was the ‘exchange for payment’.
To fulfill, to carry out his promise of breaking death and his pledge of a home for us in heaven (My Father’s mansion has many rooms. If it were not so I would have told you.), he died on the cross. He died on the cross and opened heaven to us, his resurrection proved he had broken death, and his ascension gave visual proof that there is a place other than here that we can attain to.
I am, we are, small people with limited abilities and understanding but there is something so tactile, so real, so immediate in ‘redeem’ (s)(ed)(ing)(er), that even though we are limited, we understand that we have been (ed).
NEO said:
I like this. It brings it down to where busy people with lives to live can fully comprehend what he has put on offer. Nicely done, Audre.
LikeLiked by 3 people
audremyers said:
Bless your heart! Thanks so much.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Phillip said:
If Jesus paid the price, if he bought us back, do you see that in a penal way? If so, how would you relate that to Divine Justice, since Jesus in the unblemished paschal victim? Would it go against justice for the innocent to pay the price for the guilty?
Or is this strictly in the ransomed since?
LikeLiked by 2 people
audremyers said:
Not penal; an amazing act of love. He is the unblemished Lamb, that point can’t be argued. Justice? No, I don’t think so.
It is our job to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. You must decide for yourself how His redemptive act applies. Or of what kind it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
So interesting Audre. Whenever I read learned men discussing Atonement, I go with you. It’s an act of purest love. God’s Justice is higher than our thoughts on the subject. All I know is I have enough trouble realising how much he loves me to question! x
LikeLiked by 3 people
audremyers said:
And that’s the thing, isn’t it? How do we reconcile who and what we are with who and what we’re called to be? We can’t answer ‘how much’ because it’s beyond comprehension. Ours, anyway.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Totally agree – Grace and his love are the great mysteries – he loved us enough to send his only-begotten Son to die for us and rise. Our sins die in him and new life rises with him. 🙂 x
LikeLiked by 2 people
Phillip said:
Hey Anglicans, I’d be interested to read your opinions shared on this getreligion piece of Episcopalian virtual communion:
https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2020/8/5/question-for-2020-can-episcopal-clergy-consecrate-bread-and-wine-through-the-internet
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Easy enough. The Body and the Blood should be consumed reverently. You can’t do that with the Blood and be Covid19 safe. You can, with individual wafers, so my Rector consecrates the wafers and we consume in one kind only.
I get a bit cross when people can’t, as this one can’t, the difference between traditions such as female ordination and the doctrine of the Eucharist. Many of my Catholic friends clearly do not think that the former has been ruled out by St JP II. Why a progressive view on one should involve a scareligious view of the other probably makes sense to Americans where “progressive” seems to be a term of abuse in many quarters. It makes no sense to me.
As usual, the Church of England has edged its way to a sensible compromise. Makes me giggle at one level, as Communion in one kind was, of course, the norm in the RCC until Vatican II.
I’ve always wondered whether Catholic traditionalists in your Church only receive in one kind.
LikeLike
Phillip said:
Oh, well, When perusing the article, I thought Mattingly is discussing with whether in Anglicanism the debate whether communion can be consecrated via zoom.
I guess I didn’t focus too much on the one species. I ask because the Missouri Synod Lutherans rejected the idea as Gnosticism, so I was trying to see what the debate was within Anglicanism.
And, I know this post didn’t deal with the issue, but didn’t know where else to ask the question.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Within Anglicanism, at least the Cof E bit we are clear what can’t be done. You can’t share the chalice and you can’t dispose of those individual cups some Baptists have reverently, so we take in one species.
LikeLike
Phillip said:
And yes, if you attend a Latin mass there is usually only one kind still for the laity. I think during a wedding the bride and groom partake in the sacred blood.
In fact, it’s common for dioceses to suspend the sacred blood during flu season.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I’d be interested to know more when the Latin Rite abandoned the most ancient practice of receiving in both kinds and why.
LikeLike