Jesus' Kind of Social Justice

Quote:

---

For many, the primary way of building the kingdom is to influence politics in order to make America more Christian. Others take the opposite approach, concluding that Jesus didn't try to overhaul the political systems of his day through political means; therefore Christian faith is only a private matter that has no social relevance. Both approaches get it wrong.

---

Quote:

---

He rather exposed the ugly injustices in all kingdom-of-the-world options by offering a radically distinct alternative.

For example, Jesus never entered into the fray of particular debates about the status of women in society. He rather exposed the ugliness of patriarchalism by the countercultural way he treated women. Ignoring negative consequences for his reputation, Jesus befriended them and gave them a culturally unprecedented dignity.

---

Quote:

---

In a similar way, Jesus did the same for social outcasts. He served lepers, the blind, the demonized, the poor, prostitutes, and tax collectors. His actions were a challenge to the inhumanity of social structures of the day that served as a mustard seed alternative that started small but grew slowly.

Jesus also exposed the inhumanity of certain religious rules, which was a political problem in the first century because religious leaders had political power. He exposed the evil of racial prejudice by fellowshipping with Samaritans and Gentiles, and he even praised them in his teachings. In addition, he healed and worked miracles on the Sabbath, something that religious leaders forbade.

Finally, Jesus exposed the barbarism of the Roman government by allowing himself to be crucified by them. Instead of using his power to preserve his life, he exercised the power of love by giving it.

---

Quote:

---

The power of the kingdom is not one where Christians aim to attain "power over" like the kingdoms of the world. Instead, we exercise "power under." We therefore must resist the demonic pull toward "power over" violence that characterizes all versions of the kingdom of the world. "Power under" unmasks the ugly injustice and violence that dominates our political and social systems and doesn't wage war "against flesh and blood" but instead fights against "rulers, against authorities, against cosmic powers of this present darkness (Eph 6:12).

---

Quote:

---

Jesus called the church to be a community characterized by radical, revolutionary, Calvary-quality love: a community that manifests the love of the triune God; a community that strives for justice not by conquering but by being willing to suffer; a community that God uses to transform the world by providing it with an alternative to its own self-centered, violent way of existing.

How socially and politically revolutionary it would be if we lived up to our calling!

---

Ps. 2:10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Social justice is an idol. You believe in biblical justice or you don't. Christ did not come to upset power structures.

Quote:

---

Christ did not come to upset power structures.

---

"He rather exposed the ugly injustices in all kingdom-of-the-world options by offering a radically distinct alternative." His coming, His message and His Way do upset the power structures of the world. It's inevitable because the power structures of the world are centered on power, not self-sacrificial love.

Quote:

---

Social justice is an idol.

---

It certainly can be. Just as power can be an idol. Security can be an idol. Prosperity can be an idol. America can be an idol. Patriotism can be an idol. Mutli-colored pieces of fabric can be an idol.

Social Justice is a misnomer.

Getting what you deserve is Justice.

Getting better than you deserve is mercy.

What many consider "Social Justice" is really more accurately termed as "Social Mercy".

Frankly, I'm OK with this, I would just prefer that it be called what it is.

It is mercy, not justice.

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Christ did not come to upset power structures.

---

"He rather exposed the ugly injustices in all kingdom-of-the-world options by offering a radically distinct alternative." His coming, His message and His Way do upset the power structures of the world. It's inevitable because the power structures of the world are centered on power, not self-sacrificial love.

Quote:

---

Social justice is an idol.

---

It certainly can be. Just as power can be an idol. Security can be an idol. Prosperity can be an idol. America can be an idol. Patriotism can be an idol. Mutli-colored pieces of fabric can be an idol.

---

He didn't come here to enthrone diversity chiefs at universities and corporations and subvert existing structures to serve a new and different skin color or sex or gender instead. Power structures were not his focus. He did not seek to upend the patriarchy as man and woman model Christ's relationship to the church. He did not seek upend order established and given by God to man for the family or Godly living, simply to show us how to live it out.

Quote:

---

He didn't come here to enthrone diversity chiefs at universities and corporations and subvert existing structures to serve a new and different skin color or sex or gender instead.

---

Literally nobody here has made such an argument. Goodness. We're clearly not working w/ the same definition of "social justice".

Quote:

---

Power structures were not his focus. He did not seek to upend the patriarchy as man and woman model Christ's relationship to the church. He did not seek upend order established and given by God to man for the family or Godly living, simply to show us how to live it out.

---

Those were the natural results of His teachings and actions. Whether or not that was His purpose doesn't change the results of what He did. Like Boyd mentioned re: women, by how He taught us to treat women through His words and actions, patriarchal power structures are put at risk. Part of His ministry was to show us a radical alternative to the ways of the world that was centered on Him. That radical alternative is a threat to the power structures the world rests on.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Social Justice is a misnomer.

Getting what you deserve is Justice.

Getting better than you deserve is mercy.

What many consider "Social Justice" is really more accurately termed as "Social Mercy".

Frankly, I'm OK with this, I would just prefer that it be called what it is.

It is mercy, not justice.

---

I don't believe "justice" is improper there. It depends on if you define "justice" as retributive or restorative. Here's a great Bible Project discussion on justice:

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

He didn't come here to enthrone diversity chiefs at universities and corporations and subvert existing structures to serve a new and different skin color or sex or gender instead.

---

Literally nobody here has made such an argument. Goodness. We're clearly not working w/ the same definition of "social justice".

Quote:

---

Power structures were not his focus. He did not seek to upend the patriarchy as man and woman model Christ's relationship to the church. He did not seek upend order established and given by God to man for the family or Godly living, simply to show us how to live it out.

---

Those were the natural results of His teachings and actions. Whether or not that was His purpose doesn't change the results of what He did. Like Boyd mentioned re: women, by how He taught us to treat women through His words and actions, patriarchal power structures are put at risk. Part of His ministry was to show us a radical alternative to the ways of the world that was centered on Him. That radical alternative is a threat to the power structures the world rests on.

---

Social justice is not a biblical term or idea, so no, we're not working with the same definition. It is God's justice or the world's. Why would God call His justice 'social'?

His natural results do not upset all 'power structures' everywhere: only those that are disordered. Even then they may not upset said structures as those may have Godly roots. While complementarianisn may be patriarchal and ordered in a way where one individual has 'power', if it's biblical would it be changed by Christ?

Quote:

---

Social justice is not a biblical term or idea, so no, we're not working with the same definition. It is God's justice or the world's. Why would God call His justice 'social'?

---

Social justice, as I understand it, is almost identical to the understanding of 'justice' that is discussed in the Bible Project video. Please watch if you wish to actually understand where I'm coming from as opposed to building up and attacking strawmen.

Quote:

---

His natural results do not upset all 'power structures' everywhere: only those that are disordered. Even then they may not upset said structures as those may have Godly roots. While complementarianisn may be patriarchal and ordered in a way where one individual has 'power', if it's biblical would it be changed by Christ?

---

First, you're assuming "complementarianism" is the correct approach. The way He taught and ministered to upsets the power structures of unjust power structures. I never said "all power structures everywhere". Boyd said "He rather exposed the ugly injustices in all kingdom-of-the-world options by offering a radically distinct alternative." Not all power structures are inherently wrong. Boyd was referring to those power structures that are "kingdom of the world options".

And "eye for an eye" was biblical. Christ upped that standard to "turn the other cheek". Biblical does not inherently mean Christ-like.

RetiredAg said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Social Justice is a misnomer.

Getting what you deserve is Justice.

Getting better than you deserve is mercy.

What many consider "Social Justice" is really more accurately termed as "Social Mercy".

Frankly, I'm OK with this, I would just prefer that it be called what it is.

It is mercy, not justice.

---

I don't believe "justice" is improper there. It depends on if you define "justice" as retributive or restorative. Here's a great Bible Project discussion on justice:

---

The Bible verses stopped when they started discussing structures and privileges after the exile portion, in relation to injustice. Probably because having a privilege is not inherently injustice, especially something that God desires for all, such as parents who are married and stay that way. Certainly God would desire that we all have the privilege of being free of discrimination based on skin color too. Restorative justice naturally merits injustice to others and cannot be biblical (especially if we refer to it as denial of opportunity by power structures - like college admissions). It entrenches enmity.

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Social justice is not a biblical term or idea, so no, we're not working with the same definition. It is God's justice or the world's. Why would God call His justice 'social'?

---

Social justice, as I understand it, is almost identical to the understanding of 'justice' that is discussed in the Bible Project video. Please watch if you wish to actually understand where I'm coming from as opposed to building up and attacking strawmen.

Quote:

---

His natural results do not upset all 'power structures' everywhere: only those that are disordered. Even then they may not upset said structures as those may have Godly roots. While complementarianisn may be patriarchal and ordered in a way where one individual has 'power', if it's biblical would it be changed by Christ?

---

First, you're assuming "complementarianism" is the correct approach. The way He taught and ministered to upsets the power structures of unjust power structures. I never said "all power structures everywhere". Boyd said "He rather exposed the ugly injustices in all kingdom-of-the-world options by offering a radically distinct alternative." Not all power structures are inherently wrong. Boyd was referring to those power structures that are "kingdom of the world options".

And "eye for an eye" was biblical. Christ upped that standard to "turn the other cheek". Biblical does not inherently mean Christ-like.

---

If it's identical to the Bible why don't you call it biblical or Godly justice? Because it isn't, otherwise the distinction is without merit. I watched the video and noticed that they slid in assumptions without scripture and biblical basis that you've accepted. See my other response.

AGC said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Social justice is not a biblical term or idea, so no, we're not working with the same definition. It is God's justice or the world's. Why would God call His justice 'social'?

---

Social justice, as I understand it, is almost identical to the understanding of 'justice' that is discussed in the Bible Project video. Please watch if you wish to actually understand where I'm coming from as opposed to building up and attacking strawmen.

Quote:

---

His natural results do not upset all 'power structures' everywhere: only those that are disordered. Even then they may not upset said structures as those may have Godly roots. While complementarianisn may be patriarchal and ordered in a way where one individual has 'power', if it's biblical would it be changed by Christ?

---

First, you're assuming "complementarianism" is the correct approach. The way He taught and ministered to upsets the power structures of unjust power structures. I never said "all power structures everywhere". Boyd said "He rather exposed the ugly injustices in all kingdom-of-the-world options by offering a radically distinct alternative." Not all power structures are inherently wrong. Boyd was referring to those power structures that are "kingdom of the world options".

And "eye for an eye" was biblical. Christ upped that standard to "turn the other cheek". Biblical does not inherently mean Christ-like.

---

If it's identical to the Bible why don't you call it biblical or Godly justice? Because it isn't, otherwise the distinction is without merit. I watched the video and noticed that they slid in assumptions without scripture and biblical basis that you've accepted. See my other response.

---

I didn't call it "social justice". It was the term used in the article's title. The biblical understanding of justice, as conveyed in the Bible Project video, sounds like what we typically refer to as "social justice" today.

How do you define "social justice"? I mean, you called it an idol, so clearly you have a working definition. My definition looks like biblical justice.

Quote:

---

Restorative justice naturally merits injustice to others and cannot be biblical

---

This couldn't be more wrong, and only makes sense if you have a distorted understanding of what justice is.

Clearly we're working on incompatible views of what constitutes justice. You seem to be more of a retributive justice person. I see biblical justice as restorative. I see retributive justice being closer to revenge than actual justice. But if our views of justice are so divergent, then any conversation will be fruitless.

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Restorative justice naturally merits injustice to others and cannot be biblical

---

This couldn't be more wrong, and only makes sense if you have a distorted understanding of what justice is.

Clearly we're working on incompatible views of what constitutes justice. You seem to be more of a retributive justice person. I see biblical justice as restorative. I see retributive justice being closer to revenge than actual justice. But if our views of justice are so divergent, then any conversation will be fruitless.

---

It's not wrong in my opinion nor does it require a 'distorted' understanding - for all your sensitivity about lies in the other thread here you stand carelessly slinging accusations without hesitation. Remove the plank from your eye please.

Denial of opportunity to individuals or a group for the sake of restorative justice is wrong! That's what affirmative action is or any other criteria that preferences race, sex, or gender. To deny opportunity to those that qualified historically was wrong and it will not be made right doing the same today. Yet that's what social justice today is. It is the retributive idea that cannot be visited upon those who committed said wrongs and is thusly visited upon people who look like them (but may be completely unrelated). And social justice rests upon political power structures in contemporary society - not Christians, churches, or individuals, but the government and corporations! What irony that you could think Christ came to upset power structures but be acutely unaware of how contemporary social justice propogates itself via fiat and angry twitter mobs.

Quote:

---

It's not wrong in my opinion nor does it require a 'distorted' understanding - for all your sensitivity about lies in the other thread here you stand carelessly slinging accusations without hesitation. Remove the plank from your eye please.

---

My apologies. You are right. I should be more careful with my wording. In my opinion, it is a wrong statement and I cannot personally come to such conclusion without a distorted understanding of what biblical justice is.


This gets back to our irreconcilable understandings of what constitutes "social justice". I don't view affirmative action as "restorative", nor am I calling for government action.

Quote:

---

What irony that you could think Christ came to upset power structures but be acutely unaware of how contemporary social justice propogates itself via fiat and angry twitter mobs.

---

Something about plank and eye. I am aware. Just because we may have differing understandings of justice, and for the sake of this discussion "social justice", doesn't mean I'm unaware of how the current political environment around this subject has been perverted and results in injustice itself. Stop carelessly slinging around accusations, brother.

Unless I missed something, I don't believe the article in the OP said anything about government involvement. Christ upset the unjust power structures of the day without the use of government or twitter mobs. That's the whole point of what Boyd is saying. We don't need to use government or coercion (although they're largely the same) to promote justice in society. When we follow His way, it will result in upsetting the unjust power structures of the world.

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

It's not wrong in my opinion nor does it require a 'distorted' understanding - for all your sensitivity about lies in the other thread here you stand carelessly slinging accusations without hesitation. Remove the plank from your eye please.

---

My apologies. You are right. I should be more careful with my wording. In my opinion, it is a wrong statement and I cannot personally come to such conclusion without a distorted understanding of what biblical justice is.


This gets back to our irreconcilable understandings of what constitutes "social justice". I don't view affirmative action as "restorative", nor am I calling for government action.

Quote:

---

What irony that you could think Christ came to upset power structures but be acutely unaware of how contemporary social justice propogates itself via fiat and angry twitter mobs.

---

Something about plank and eye. I am aware. Just because we may have differing understandings of justice, and for the sake of this discussion "social justice", doesn't mean I'm unaware of how the current political environment around this subject has been perverted and results in injustice itself. Stop carelessly slinging around accusations, brother.

Unless I missed something, I don't believe the article in the OP said anything about government involvement. Christ upset the unjust power structures of the day without the use of government or twitter mobs. That's the whole point of what Boyd is saying. We don't need to use government or coercion (although they're largely the same) to promote justice in society. When we follow His way, it will result in upsetting the unjust power structures of the world.

---

Look I get what you're saying but this is the same split as the confederate flag. If you view it as anti-federal government but I view it as racist, what ultimately wins is the definition of those in power, right? It doesn't matter if you have a good definition or intentions, or even if we're 90% in agreement. You choosing not to define social justice the same as society but using the term interchangeably with biblical justice undermines your claim, not theirs. Their term did not originate with Christ nor are their pursuits motivated by Him so you are wrong to conclude they are pretty much the same. Their methods of 'restorative' justice are not His so you should not support them. Like your video slipped in assumptions about privilege without appropriate biblical citation, so the world puts its own ideas in the cause.

I'm also perplexed by your ideas or retributive justice as revenge motivated. Was it not retributive justice that God demanded, meriting Christ's sacrifice to reconcile us to Himself? Or can God not judge humanity and demand justice for sin?

Quote:

---

You choosing not to define social justice the same as society but using the term interchangeably with biblical justice undermines your claim, not theirs.

---

Not true. Many people define marriage differently from each other. A Christian will define it differently, most of the time, than the state or secular society. It doesn't make one more valid than the other.

Quote:

---

Their methods of 'restorative' justice are not His so you should not support them.

---

Edited: sorry, who do you mean by "their"? I was originally assuming you meant the Bible Project video creators.

What ways are you referring to?

Quote:

---

Like your video slipped in assumptions about privilege without appropriate biblical citation, so the world puts its own ideas in the cause.

---

They are designed as short videos to be introductions into greater subjects. That's why it's only 7 minutes long. The go into the ancient meanings of the words used and elaborate on them briefly. They aren't meant to be exhaustive.

Quote:

---

I'm also perplexed by your ideas or retributive justice as revenge motivated. Was it not retributive justice that God demanded, meriting Christ's sacrifice to reconcile us to Himself? Or can God not judge humanity and demand justice for sin?

---

I don't believe God had Jesus killed. I don't take a penal substitutionary view of atonement. I subscribe to the Christus Victor view. As Brian Zahnd put it, "At the cross Jesus does not save us from God at the cross Jesus reveals God as savior! When we look at the cross we don't see what God does, we see who God is!...The cross is not where God finds a whipping boy to vent his rage upon the cross is where God saves the world through self-sacrificing love."

Quote:

---

Yet that's what social justice today is. It is the retributive idea that cannot be visited upon those who committed said wrongs and is thusly visited upon people who look like them (but may be completely unrelated). And social justice rests upon political power structures in contemporary society - not Christians, churches, or individuals, but the government and corporations! What irony that you could think Christ came to upset power structures but be acutely unaware of how contemporary social justice propogates itself via fiat and angry twitter mobs.

---

POTD

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

You choosing not to define social justice the same as society but using the term interchangeably with biblical justice undermines your claim, not theirs.

---

Not true. Many people define marriage differently from each other. A Christian will define it differently, most of the time, than the state or secular society. It doesn't make one more valid than the other.

Quote:

---

Their methods of 'restorative' justice are not His so you should not support them.

---

Edited: sorry, who do you mean by "their"? I was originally assuming you meant the Bible Project video creators.

What ways are you referring to?

Quote:

---

Like your video slipped in assumptions about privilege without appropriate biblical citation, so the world puts its own ideas in the cause.

---

They are designed as short videos to be introductions into greater subjects. That's why it's only 7 minutes long. The go into the ancient meanings of the words used and elaborate on them briefly. They aren't meant to be exhaustive.

Quote:

---

I'm also perplexed by your ideas or retributive justice as revenge motivated. Was it not retributive justice that God demanded, meriting Christ's sacrifice to reconcile us to Himself? Or can God not judge humanity and demand justice for sin?

---

I don't believe God had Jesus killed. I don't take a penal substitutionary view of atonement. I subscribe to the Christus Victor view. As Brian Zahnd put it, "At the cross Jesus does not save us from God at the cross Jesus reveals God as savior! When we look at the cross we don't see what God does, we see who God is!...The cross is not where God finds a whipping boy to vent his rage upon the cross is where God saves the world through self-sacrificing love."

---

Ugh, I forgot about your theology. That's why you embrace social justice and liberalism.

Nevermind. It's the same from the same people every single time. I'm not sure in what universe Christus Victor is a sign of embracing flawed understandings of social justice and liberalism, but apparently that's where we are. I just don't have the energy for this, because it's never constructive.

Quote:

---

For example, Jesus never entered into the fray of particular debates about the status of women in society. He rather exposed the ugliness of patriarchalism by the countercultural way he treated women. Ignoring negative consequences for his reputation, Jesus befriended them and gave them a culturally unprecedented dignity.

---

Bad example. Jesus had 12 male apostles.

I'm trying to solidify what the author's idea of "Jesus' kind of social justice." Is it to simply attempt to tear down existing social structures?

Quote:

---

It's the same from the same people every single time.

---

How many people are on this list? You say it a lot.

Quote:

---

RetiredAg said:

Quote:

---

Quote:
You choosing not to define social justice the same as society but using the term interchangeably with biblical justice undermines your claim, not theirs.

---

Not true. Many people define marriage differently from each other. A Christian will define it differently, most of the time, than the state or secular society. It doesn't make one more valid than the other.

---

I just have to chime in here and say that regardless of anything else, substituting commonly understood terms with your own definition does in fact undermine your position.

RetiredAg said:

---

Nevermind. It's the same from the same people every single time. I'm not sure in what universe Christus Victor is a sign of embracing flawed understandings of social justice and liberalism, but apparently that's where we are. I just don't have the energy for this, because it's never constructive.

---

You misunderstand. Your theology informs your world view. I'm not arguing a definition here, despite what I've tried to do; I'm arguing theology veiled as a debate about a definition. Hence the 'ugh' as I come to that realization. I see no purpose in going further. I'm not going to change your theology and without that there will be no advancement. You see a different God than I do and I don't want to rehash inerrancy of scripture or OT debates to engage you concept of God and Jesus in an attempt to resolve this thread.

The same crowds that aligned the roads with palm branches and shouted Hosanna (Savior) as he rode into Jerusalem for the Passover Feast, wanted him crucified three days later once they realized Jesus Christ was NOT A SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR.

Quote:

---

I'm also perplexed by your ideas or retributive justice as revenge motivated. Was it not retributive justice that God demanded, meriting Christ's sacrifice to reconcile us to Himself? Or can God not judge humanity and demand justice for sin?

---

Whoa whoa whoa.

God demanded the death of His Son as a means of justice?

Nope. Do not want.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm also perplexed by your ideas or retributive justice as revenge motivated. Was it not retributive justice that God demanded, meriting Christ's sacrifice to reconcile us to Himself? Or can God not judge humanity and demand justice for sin?

---

Whoa whoa whoa.

God demanded the death of His Son as a means of justice?

Nope. Do not want.

---

Amen. That's not justice.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm also perplexed by your ideas or retributive justice as revenge motivated. Was it not retributive justice that God demanded, meriting Christ's sacrifice to reconcile us to Himself? Or can God not judge humanity and demand justice for sin?

---

Whoa whoa whoa.

God demanded the death of His Son as a means of justice?

Nope. Do not want.

---

Not what I said and a misrepresentation which I believe to be malicious.

St Gregory the Theologian asks to whom was the debt owed and to whom was it paid? A ransom is paid to the kidnapper right? Is the ransom paid to the evil one? He said "fie upon the outrage!" Or do we then make the Father out to be the one holding the hostage?

You said justice that God demanded, meriting Christ's sacrifice for reconciliation.

Can you explain this another way than God demanding the death of Christ for reconciliation?

k2aggie07 said:

---

You said justice that God demanded, meriting Christ's sacrifice for reconciliation.

Can you explain this another way than God demanding the death of Christ for reconciliation?

---

I didn't say he demanded Christ's death and intentionally tried to split the idea from reconciliation which He freely offers as we have no way to achieve it ourselves. What is freely given is not demanded and I have made by statement that it is anything but. Hence I believe your reading is in bad faith.

I don't think you take issue with Him being just or requiring holiness in His presence (though you might). I assume you think there is consequence for sin, hence the concept of justice such that grace and forgiveness are necessary (you might not). I assume as well that you believe there isn't anything we can do on our to achieve it. At no point in this train of thought is God some blood-thirsty monster as it clashes with the idea of Him as love but perhaps you disagree that love and justice coexist, or that He has a right to claim justice as his province, in which case 'the law' must be satisfied.

I doubt any of those concepts are foreign to you, exposed as you are to other Protestants. Likewise the idea that Jesus freely gave Himself as the only way justice is achieved and reconciliation is possible should not be foreign. Lastly this is not a comprehensive theology or response by any means so I expect you to be a little more charitable in your reading this time, if for no other reason than a shared faith.

Man. I don't know why you got so riled up.

But to be short, no, I don't think Jesus died to satisfy cosmic justice. God isn't constrained by justice; He IS justice. I'm not sure that the satisfaction of justice or lack thereof is the barrier to reconciliation. Just wondering - can we say that God demands justice as a criterion? He expects us to act justly, but this is a commandment of righteous dealing with each other.

I wasn't being malicious or uncharitable; a lot of people are totally fine with the theology of Anselm of Canterbury. I'm not, but I thought maybe you were.

St Gregory the Theologian:

Quote:

---

To Whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High priest and Sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether. But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim? Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things? So much we have said of Christ; the greater part of what we might say shall be reverenced with silence. But that brazen serpent was hung up as a remedy for the biting serpents, not as a type of Him that suffered for us, but as a contrast; and it saved those that looked upon it, not because they believed it to live, but because it was killed, and killed with it the powers that were subject to it, being destroyed as it deserved. And what is the fitting epitaph for it from us? "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" Thou art overthrown by the Cross; thou art slain by Him who is the Giver of life; thou art without breath, dead, without motion, even though thou keepest the form of a serpent lifted up on high on a pole.

---