ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

How would this occur since Christ was innocent and without blame?

The mob, religious or secular leaders, were the main issue. Just because Judas led them to Jesus does not mean God could not have allowed another person or no person to do it. Jesus could have voluntarily walked out in the open if that is what it would take to get Him killed. Judas was incidental and unnecessary to ensure that Jesus would die. Judas as an individual was not the reason He died. All the other people would have led to the same outcome even if Judas was never born. You underestimate God's orchestration and ability if you think redemption depending on Judas, not God Himself.

 

[godrulz]

I think an argument can be made that in a world of libertarian free will agents that if God knows any single thing in advance He must necessarily know all things in advance. You just can't have it both ways as Boyd and you would like:

Nevertheless, I can appreciate your confusion, especially when reading Boyd (God of the Possible):

“In any event, the distinctive aspect of my approach is that I regard both motifs [future determinism and future openness] to be equally descriptive of the way God and the future actually are. On this basis, I arrive at the conclusion that the future is to some degree settled and known by God as such, and to some degree open and known by God as such. To some extent, God knows the future as definitely this way and definitely not that way. Some extent, however, he knows it as possibly this way and possibly not that way.

This is the “open view of God” or, as I prefer, the “open view of the future.” It does not hold that the future is wide open. Much of it, open theists concede, is settled ahead of time, either by God’s predestining will or by existing earthly causes, but it is not exhaustively settled ahead of time. To whatever degree the future is yet open to be decided, it is unsettled. To this extent, God knows it as a realm of possibilities, not certainties.”
​

Talk about wanting to have it both ways. Gheez!

You are proof texting one motif while ignoring the other. This is a credible resolution of the issues that you apparently do not understand.

Knowing that Jesus will die because of God's ability to make this happen unconditionally (cf. Second Coming) in no way proves exhaustive definite foreknowledge of future free will contingencies, moral and mundane choices, that God choses to not bring to pass by letting us actualize some things.

Your assumptions blind you. You are not as smart as you think you are. I am surprised you do not understand a view you are claiming to refute.

Your credibility has taken another hit.:ha:

 

[godrulz]

I think the difference is that when God knows something it is a certainty and has therefore necessarily incorporated all the contingencies that would have made such knowledge certain. I admit that I have not quite fleshed this out, but I think there is cheese down the tunnel that I intend to pursue: In a libertarian world, can any single thing be known by God as certain without God knowing all things? Associated with this is the argument that any intentions on the part of God must also presume foreknowledge. To have intentions is to imply knowledge of sorts. Again, something I have not got my mind around yet, but I think there is something here that deserves some research.

God's intentions can be undermined. He intended to save everyone and provide redemption to all, but many simply continue to love darkness more than light. Your omnicausal assumptions simply will not let you think outside your tiny box.

 

[Lon]

AMR, I don't get this reasoning.

If I know in advance that I will being going to Wal-Mart at 3PM tomorrow (or if I know my wife is going to Wal-Mart at 3PM tomorrow) there is no reason that I would then need to know the meticulous detail about every other event between now and then.

Can you please tell me why knowing certain events, necessitates knowing ALL events? :idunno:

I think the difference is that when God knows something it is a certainty and has therefore necessarily incorporated all the contingencies that would have made such knowledge certain. I admit that I have not quite fleshed this out, but I think there is cheese down the tunnel that I intend to pursue: In a libertarian world, can any single thing be known by God as certain without God knowing all things? Associated with this is the argument that any intentions on the part of God must also presume foreknowledge. To have intentions is to imply knowledge of sorts. Again, something I have not got my mind around yet, but I think there is something here that deserves some research.

For part of this discussion, it helps to recognize how all His attributes tie together.

For instance, James warns 'us' about being prideful in our predeterminations.

Jas 4:13 Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go into this or that town17 and spend a year there and do business and make a profit."
Jas 4:14 You18 do not know about tomorrow. What is your life like?19 For you are a puff of smoke20 that appears for a short time and then vanishes.
Jas 4:15 You ought to say instead,21 "If the Lord is willing, then we will live and do this or that."
Jas 4:16 But as it is,22 you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil.

These verses confused me as a teen. I never grasped it theologically. James and Jude were always difficult reads for me back then.

Verse 14&15 explain it well enough, but I couldn't figure out why presumption equated evil and arrogance. I mean, I planned things in the future all the time.

It isn't a warning against planning, it is rather a warning for not seeking the will of God in our life endeavers.

Here is the difference: God's power ensures also a thing will be done. We determine things but we really have no power over circumstance, God does. What He decrees is going to happen. Judas betrayed, Jesus' bones were not broken. Manasseh had a grandson who was named Josiah. These are all determinisms but it is uniquely God's alone. We determine realizing that the best laid plans can be twarted. God's cannot. Our very breath is sustained by Him. If a roman soldier moved to break Jesus' legs, God can stop that with barely a thought. I do believe in meticulous involvement with creation. If we are sustained by Christ as scripture tells us, there is no breath or movement drawn without His sustaining it. We are created unique, to make choices and respond to our Creator. I'm not able to wade through all of that beautiful relationship with a scientific analytical mind very often. In dissecting, the subject is often killed to see how it ticks. I'm admittedly a bit of a life-lover and try not to overanalyze beauty. We have a beautiful relationship with our God. I'm not sure I want to see the heart beating to a stop just to see it pumping. It is there underneath the skin. For me, it is enough that Christ knows us, sustains everything about us, knows the number of the hairs that fell off on the pillow and in the shower. Perhaps it was # 4652, 1376, etc. Why He knows or cares to know is amazing to me.

When God determines, it is under wholly different circumstances than we. This is why I'm troubled by a limitation on anything He determines and knows. We throw our propositions on the table like we aren't talking about the Lord of Glory. We dissect the beautiful God down to what He can and cannot do and try to figure out the insides of what makes Him tick. There is a nature lover inside me that seeks to see the whole and attribute to Him those beautiful things without a need to rip Him apart. I'm a creation, not a creator. I'm an asthetic experiencer over an analytical scientist/philosopher. I'd rather say 'yes' God can make a rock so large, and then He can turn around and pick it up some how and then keep going by making a bigger rock and repeat, because He's awesome and wonderful, and glorious, and 'my dad is stronger than your dad' and He's wonderful and can do anything even if you want to rip that apart and say He can't sin. Like a proud child who could give a care less, I'd say "so what?"

The traditional view is where I find God to be that kind of God. I'll go back to analyzing shortly, but I just wanted to share that I'm not always the analyzer. If nobody challenged my beliefs I'd be happy even if they didn't always make the most sense. I appreciate being challenged to make them substantial, but still it is for a beautiful relationship with the Savior that I'm a Christian. These debates are important, but I don't always find that they satisfy the appreciated aspects of my faith.

For now, as in my previous post, OV is so close to saying EDF that it almost doesn't matter that you avoid the word. If you lift up an attribute like His power to accomplish, it almost must be seen it lifts up definite forknowledge to the same level. Intimately sustaining creation is almost the same. Power like a nuclear blast that none can contain to accomplish His purposes is almost the same. Loving determinism to see His creation regenerated is almost the same. You guys are almost embracing EDF without using those words.

 

[godrulz]

"He knew from the beginning who would betray him, and who would believe in him; he knew what would befall the rejecters of him, and when that would come to pass; as he must know also the day of the last judgment, since it is appointed by God, and he is ordained to execute it." (Adam Clarke)


He made a decision, yes, but this was long after the incident where it is said "Jesus knew from the beginning who would betray him."


"The son of perdition" however may indicate a destiny at birth.

Regards,
Lee

Jesus did not chose a devil after a night of prayer to be in His inner circle. Judas was called an apostle, but became a betrayer. He was not born a son of hell (are you a Calvinist that believes in elect/non-elect?). God does not fix eternal destinies before birth. This is Calvinism/double predestination, not biblical teaching.

The beginning is sometime after Judas was chosen as an apostle. He went down hill quickly.

Jesus Christ Superstar, rock opera, has this fatalistic Calvinistic thinking about Judas. It also has Judas in heaven and Jesus remaining on the cross. Go figure.

 

[RobE]

The mob, religious or secular leaders, were the main issue. Just because Judas led them to Jesus does not mean God could not have allowed another person or no person to do it. Jesus could have voluntarily walked out in the open if that is what it would take to get Him killed. Judas was incidental and unnecessary to ensure that Jesus would die. Judas as an individual was not the reason He died. All the other people would have led to the same outcome even if Judas was never born. You underestimate God's orchestration and ability if you think redemption depending on Judas, not God Himself.

You meant Judas was unecessary to the situation. I agree. This is another reason to believe in God's foreknowledge.

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)​

The Old Testament prophecies concerning free will agents and the death of Christ serve no purpose towards God achieving His plans. Christ not having a bone broken by a free will agent, Christ having a spear thrust into His side by a free will agent, Christ being betrayed by a free will agent He supped with, etc., etc., etc.

We MUST ask ourselves why these prophecies exist. They aren't necessary towards God's plan, but their foretelling occurred.

Open theism claims that the foreknowledge of free will acts is impossible, but the scriptures foretell of them. I think this leaves us with only two available options.

1) God coerced free will agents to bring evil acts about so the prophecies would be fulfilled.

2) God foreknew the evil acts of free will agents when the prophecies were made.

I stand by option #2 because I am unable to find another adequate solution. Do you have another viable solution to the problem?

I've heard you claim that God found free will agents whos future acts would fulfill these prophecies, but you ignore the fact that God would have to know the future acts of those same free will agents for this to be true. Everywhere we look, only the two options above present themselves.

John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

Neither one of us believes that Christ 'groomed' Judas to fulfill the prophecy as Muz suggests(Muz doesn't even believe this himself). That only leaves us with foreknowledge of free acts as a viable conclusion.

We know that Christ called ALL men including Judas Iscariot, that Christ loved His enemies as He commanded us to do, and that Christ died so that ALL could be saved. I believe Christ made every effort towards converting Judas, but alas, something within Judas Iscariot's nature wouldn't allow him to believe. God simply foreknows the free acts of man; and, from the knowledge of their actions, foreknows their eternal disposition as either saint or reprobate.

This renders the idea that foreknowledge is incompatible with free will as false. Calvin, and open theism, are wrong in their assumptions here. It isn't my words, but the Holy Scripture itself which reveals this to us through the revelation of future acts of free agents.

Is there a great mystery here once we realize that the source of God's foreknowledge are the free acts themselves(outside of time) or complete knowledge of past and present conditions(extrapolation)?

Godrulz,

I want to make this post more personal. I'm sure that many here will consider this pandering, but I want to take a moment to praise your actions and behavior towards your Christian brothers on TOL. In the last 2 years I've only seen you lose your temper a couple of times. I appreciate the fact that you always post a response, whether substantive or not, when you are addressed. I find no deception within your person, a loving kindness in your disposition, and a sincere desire in you to discover the truth. Blessed are those who seek the face of God.

Thanks.

Your Friend,
Rob Mauldin

 

[Philetus]

For instance, James warns 'us' about being prideful in our predeterminations.



These verses confused me as a teen. I never grasped it theologically. James and Jude were always difficult reads for me back then.

Verse 14&15 explain it well enough, but I couldn't figure out why presumption equated evil and arrogance. I mean, I planned things in the future all the time.

It isn't a warning against planning, it is rather a warning for not seeking the will of God in our life endeavers.

Here is the difference: God's power ensures also a thing will be done. We determine things but we really have no power over circumstance, God does. What He decrees is going to happen. Judas betrayed, Jesus' bones were not broken. Manasseh had a grandson who was named Josiah. These are all determinisms but it is uniquely God's alone. We determine realizing that the best laid plans can be twarted. God's cannot. Our very breath is sustained by Him. If a roman soldier moved to break Jesus' legs, God can stop that with barely a thought. I do believe in meticulous involvement with creation. If we are sustained by Christ as scripture tells us, there is no breath or movement drawn without His sustaining it. We are created unique, to make choices and respond to our Creator. I'm not able to wade through all of that beautiful relationship with a scientific analytical mind very often. In dissecting, the subject is often killed to see how it ticks. I'm admittedly a bit of a life-lover and try not to overanalyze beauty. We have a beautiful relationship with our God. I'm not sure I want to see the heart beating to a stop just to see it pumping. It is there underneath the skin. For me, it is enough that Christ knows us, sustains everything about us, knows the number of the hairs that fell off on the pillow and in the shower. Perhaps it was # 4652, 1376, etc. Why He knows or cares to know is amazing to me.

When God determines, it is under wholly different circumstances than we. This is why I'm troubled by a limitation on anything He determines and knows. We throw our propositions on the table like we aren't talking about the Lord of Glory. We dissect the beautiful God down to what He can and cannot do and try to figure out the insides of what makes Him tick. There is a nature lover inside me that seeks to see the whole and attribute to Him those beautiful things without a need to rip Him apart. I'm a creation, not a creator. I'm an asthetic experiencer over an analytical scientist/philosopher. I'd rather say 'yes' God can make a rock so large, and then He can turn around and pick it up some how and then keep going by making a bigger rock and repeat, because He's awesome and wonderful, and glorious, and 'my dad is stronger than your dad' and He's wonderful and can do anything even if you want to rip that apart and say He can't sin. Like a proud child who could give a care less, I'd say "so what?"

The traditional view is where I find God to be that kind of God. I'll go back to analyzing shortly, but I just wanted to share that I'm not always the analyzer. If nobody challenged my beliefs I'd be happy even if they didn't always make the most sense. I appreciate being challenged to make them substantial, but still it is for a beautiful relationship with the Savior that I'm a Christian. These debates are important, but I don't always find that they satisfy the appreciated aspects of my faith.

For now, as in my previous post, OV is so close to saying EDF that it almost doesn't matter that you avoid the word. If you lift up an attribute like His power to accomplish, it almost must be seen it lifts up definite forknowledge to the same level. Intimately sustaining creation is almost the same. Power like a nuclear blast that none can contain to accomplish His purposes is almost the same. Loving determinism to see His creation regenerated is almost the same. You guys are almost embracing EDF without using those words.

Nice devotional. Really!
But, TOL isn’t about devotions. There are sites for that. TOL is about debate.

And, Lon, your inference that Open Theists do not stand in awe of God is getting old.

Open Theism isn’t about EDF. It is a about God not exhaustively determining the future. From our perspective it is AWSOME that God can determine to make what He wills happen and still preserve the freedom of individuals within that framework, without knowing exhaustively how they will respond, which they will decide or what they will do.

When I was a teen I read those verses as you do now. You are on the right track. Now, keep going. James is indeed telling us to NOT make our plans WITHOUT consideration of what God IS doing and without considering what God has said He will do in our future. It is a matter of recognizing and surrendering to the reign of Christ in the world even NOW while perusing the future that God intends and will eventually bring about. The issue is whether or not we (whosoever) will or will not enter that future. God’s future is being resisted and man is indeed trying to replace that future with his own imaginations. Such imaginings lead only to destruction because the future God plans will come about. It is the hope we have in us and that hope doesn’t disappoint. We have God’s Word, Spirit and faithfulness as a guarantee. We have Jesus to follow into God's future or we wander off into a future of our own making that doesn’t include God. Now that’s a hell of a future to look forward to, isn’t it.

Philetus

 

[RobE]

I think the difference is that when God knows something it is a certainty and has therefore necessarily incorporated all the contingencies that would have made such knowledge certain. I admit that I have not quite fleshed this out, but I think there is cheese down the tunnel that I intend to pursue: In a libertarian world, can any single thing be known by God as certain without God knowing all things? Associated with this is the argument that any intentions on the part of God must also presume foreknowledge. To have intentions is to imply knowledge of sorts. Again, something I have not got my mind around yet, but I think there is something here that deserves some research.

Knowledge is the basis of all acts unless one is insane.

Are Divine Decrees based upon foreknown reason(intention) or does God simply decree chaotically with no purpose(no intention)?

The same might be said for all free agents. Choices are based upon foreknown outcomes. Men aren't privy to all-knowledge so the results of our actions are often different than expected because of our incomplete knowledge. God is a different story since God has perfect knowledge of present and past events. This makes His conclusions about future acts exact. This argument reflects Molinism.

God residing outside of time is unarguable because God 'seeing' the acts committed makes His foreknowledge a result of our actions. This is the easy version, but might lead to presuming that God scripted sin since He was the creator of this reality.

The question Knight might want to consider is that does he(or his wife) have the ability to do otherwise unless another option is foreknown to them? Even the definition of LFW requires foreknowledge to be valid.

 

[themuzicman]

Well how about where Jesus' bones were not broken? How is that not what we are talking about? That Roman could have done it just to make sure and it was par for the course to do so. Either God controlled that Roman and any others with the idea of following protocol, or God knew it wasn't going to happen. Even in the OV world predictability can be an almost exact science with God.

You'll notice that Jesus died fairly quickly (compared to what we would expect), and when the soldier came to break Jesus' legs (to speed the death process along), he didn't because Jesus was ALREADY dead, and the soldier tested this by piercing his side. Again, this isn't some kind of supernatural intervention, but an understanding of how Roman crucifixions work, and how to accomplish what was prophesied. So, again, you're inserting into the text what need not be there. It's not as though God was unaware of what the Romans process was.

Why not just hang up your trouble with EDF? It is almost blatantly clear God knows us so intimately. Even with GR's explanation of known contingency He's so nearly omniscient that your only hang up seems to be that you think the Greeks influence it, but come on. If you take your own reasoning and postulations it is almost there. Is it just that you are unwilling to make a stand? What is the real problem here? Even Patman's software re-analogy leads to a very convincing stance on definitions that are almost exhaustive. Is it the 'almost?'

As has been demonstrated several times in this thread, EDF is incompatible with LFW. Because the principles of Scripture (and sin and judgment and justification and love) all point to the necessity for man to have free will, EDF is the odd man out. It (EDF) is not Scriptural, and isn't necessary from Scripture.

Thus, OVTs reach this conclusion from a careful study of Scripture, an honest look at the history of doctrine in the church, and seeking to reconcile the two in a logically consistent manner.

Muz

 

[RobE]

Again, this isn't some kind of supernatural intervention, but an understanding of how Roman crucifixions work, and how to accomplish what was prophesied. So, again, you're inserting into the text what need not be there. It's not as though God was unaware of what the Romans process was.

Were the Romans even around when the prophecy was given?

 

[themuzicman]

Were the Romans even around when the prophecy was given?

Do you really think that God is incapable of bringing about His prophecy as He desires without fixing all the details beforehand?

Muz

 

[RobE]

As has been demonstrated several times in this thread, EDF is incompatible with LFW.

Yet LFW is non-existent without EDF. A perplexing dilemna. How could one say that doing ~A would yield any result contrary to doing A without EDF?

LFW = The unforeknown ability to maybe do A or maybe do ~A.
OR
LFW = The foreknown ability to definitely do A or definitely do ~A.

LFW presupposes:
1) 2 definite outcomes from a definite act.
2) The exhaustive knowledge that an outside force won't interfere with those definite outcomes.
3) That the definite act occurs in the future.

LFW's definition requires Exhaustive and Definite knowledge of a future event.

 

[RobE]

Do you really think that God is incapable of bringing about His prophecy as He desires without fixing all the details beforehand?

Muz

Of course not. God is capable of doing anything possible which doesn't conflict with His essential nature. The problem occurs when we view evil acts.

Do you think that God brought about evil acts through His own power either by force, coercion, or encouragement? If not, then the prophecies of evil acts are purely foreknown in nature.

 

[themuzicman]

Of course not. God is capable of doing anything possible which doesn't conflict with His essential nature.

There you go, then. Knowing Roman crucifixion practices, God knew what He had to do in order to fulfill His prophecies without determination.

The problem occurs when we view evil acts.

Do you think that God brought about evil acts through His own power either by force, coercion, or encouragement? If not, then the prophecies of evil acts are purely foreknown in nature.

Unless, of course,they aren't foreknown at all...

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Yet LFW is non-existent without EDF. A perplexing dilemna. How could one say that doing ~A would yield any result contrary to doing A without EDF?



LFW presupposes:
1) 2 definite outcomes from a definite act.
2) The exhaustive knowledge that an outside force won't interfere with those definite outcomes.
3) That the definite act occurs in the future.

LFW's definition requires Exhaustive and Definite knowledge of a future event.

LOL... You know, I've been commenting about your lack of intellectual prowess, but I read this and just laughed, as you've finally demonstrated what I've been saying all along.

This has to be the dumbest post I've seen in a LONG time.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

You meant Judas was unecessary to the situation. I agree. This is another reason to believe in God's foreknowledge.

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)​

Your Friend,
Rob Mauldin

It sounds like you are talking Arminian simple foreknowledge.

When Jesus chose Judas, he was not a devil or betrayer. Jesus considered him an apostle/disciple. Early in his ministy, Jesus would not have said these words. He said them when Judas changed and it became a possible object of present knowledge to say these words truthfully. This is not foreknowledge, but present knowledge (which OT affirms, obviously).

John Sanders develops the idea of Scripture illustrating/'fulfilling' a verse rather than it being a predictive prophecy based on simple foreknowledge of Judas. I am satisfied with his research and various examples.

Simple foreknowledge offers no providential advantage to God (gets nonsensical when you start thinking about it). Even though you do not see it, I am convinced that EDF of future free will contingencies is not possible (emphasis on exhaustive and definite).

Your questions are good ones that have been credibly answered in OT literature.

 

[RobE]

There you go, then. Knowing Roman crucifixion practices, God knew what He had to do in order to fulfill His prophecies without determination.

Ok. But not breaking bones isn't an evil act.

Unless, of course,they aren't foreknown at all...

Muz

John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

If not foreknown then God manipulated evil acts to create prophecy fulfilling events.

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)​

Christ chose Judas (foreknowing His evil acts would be impossible according to open theism) and coerced Judas to commit evil acts to fulfill the prophecy which was given before Judas' birth.

I think I'll stick with God foreknew Judas' evil acts over the idea that God coerced those evil acts to fulfill prophecy.

 

[godrulz]

You'll notice that Jesus died fairly quickly (compared to what we would expect), and when the soldier came to break Jesus' legs (to speed the death process along), he didn't because Jesus was ALREADY dead, and the soldier tested this by piercing his side. Again, this isn't some kind of supernatural intervention, but an understanding of how Roman crucifixions work, and how to accomplish what was prophesied. So, again, you're inserting into the text what need not be there. It's not as though God was unaware of what the Romans process was.




Muz

I don't think the Romans or their practices existed at the time of the OT 'prophecy'. If not, it was not a possible object of certain knowledge for God. Was there a primary application for the Psalmist's historical understanding and then an application to Christ by way of illustration (Sanders understanding of some uses of 'fulfill')?

 

[themuzicman]

Ok. But not breaking bones isn't an evil act.

Never said otherwise.

John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

If not foreknown then God manipulated evil acts to create prophecy fulfilling events.

False dichotomy, but I wouldn't expect you to be able to wrap your mind around the other possibilities.

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)​

Christ chose Judas (foreknowing His evil acts would be impossible according to open theism) and coerced Judas to commit evil acts to fulfill the prophecy which was given before Judas' birth.

Again, eisegesis. This is simply an unnecessary conclusion. I think you need to study group dynamics.

I think I'll stick with God foreknew Judas' evil acts over the idea that God coerced those evil acts to fulfill prophecy.

Simple minds stick with simple answers, even if they are incorrect. Go for it.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

I don't think the Romans or their practices existed at the time of the OT 'prophecy'. If not, it was not a possible object of certain knowledge for God. Was there a primary application for the Psalmist's historical understanding and then an application to Christ by way of illustration (Sanders understanding of some uses of 'fulfill')?

And that's how the NT writers frequently apply the OT to their writings. Paul uses Hosea in a way that Hosea never intended, but the idea is that in the same way that this was true in Hosea's day, it is true today.

Same thing for Matthew citing "Out of Egypt I have called my son." So, there are many examples of this kind of thing.

Now, if God intended for this to be directly true, then God would have simply picked a time when a sufficiently horrible death was possible without the breaking of bones, and the Roman period became that time.

Muz