Isaiah 53 the origin of PSA

[Johann]

Point 4 : Sacrifice was actually prescribed by God in the law to address the purity issue—there was nothing illegal about it, by definition. The animals were actually 'given' by God for this process, as was the blood of the animal :

For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement. [Lev 17.11, NRSV]

“The physiological facts that blood carries life to all parts of the animate body and that death quickly follows serious loss of blood is here raised to a matter of moral and spiritual principle as well. The shed blood of an animal meant its life had been given up in death and thus, in the context of sacrifice, its life had ransomed and cleansed (made atonement for) the life of the sinful human being on whose behalf it had been slain. [Carson, D., & Guthrie, D. (1997, c1994). New Bible Commentary : 21st century edition (electronic ed. of the 4th ed.) (Lev 18:1). Downers Grove: InterVarsity.]

The extremely detailed prescriptions for the various sacrifices show that these are legal procedures used to deal with punishment/purity issues—in such a way as to legally avoid the inevitability of decimating the population, or driving God away from their midst.


Atonement in the OT/Tanaach is closer in content to 'purification' than 'salvation' (in the general sense we use it today):

“The function of this sacrifice as well as others is to 'make atonement' (NIV). Many scholars now agree, however, that 'atonement' is not the best translation for the concept on either the ritual or the theological level. Perhaps most convincing is the fact that in the ritual texts the object of atonement is neither the sin nor the person [tanknote: this is not strictly the case, since often the word is said to be atonement 'for your souls', but 'upon the altar'], but a holy object connected with God's presence, such as the ark or the altar. A second important observation is that in a number of cases this atonement is necessary even though no sin has been committed (for instance, the ritual impurity of women each month). For these and other reasons recent scholars have preferred 'purification' or, more technically, 'purgation,' as the translation. So the altar would be purged on behalf of the offerer whose sin or impurity had ritually tarnished it. The purpose was to maintain the sanctity of God's presence in their midst. The ritual, like a disinfectant, is normally remedial, but it can be preventative. The agent is usually blood, but not always. This decontamination of the sanctuary renders the offerer clean and paves the way for his reconciliation with God.” [Matthews, V. h., Chavalas, M. W., & Walton, J. H. (2000). The IVP Bible background commentary : Old Testament (electronic ed.) (Lev 1:4). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.]

The Book of Hebrews comments on this procedure: “Hence not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been told to all the people by Moses in accordance with the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the scroll itself and all the people, saying, 'This is the blood of the covenant that God has ordained for you.' And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” [Heb 9.18ff, NRSV]


Point 5 : The 'high handed' sins [from the root word for 'boil up/over', 'seethe'!] are essentially repudiations of God's rule—a tacit admission of anti-citizenship in Israel. These individuals were 'given what they wanted'--exile from under God's Law (via death or banishment). Cf. Deut 17.12 ['And the man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the Lord your God, nor to the judge, that man shall die; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.', NAS] and Num 15:27ff ['An individual who sins unintentionally shall present a female goat a year old for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the one who commits an error, when it is unintentional, to make atonement for the person, who then shall be forgiven. For both the native among the Israelites and the alien residing among them, you shall have the same law for anyone who acts in error. But whoever acts high-handedly, whether a native or an alien, affronts the Lord, and shall be cut off from among the people. Because of having despised the word of the Lord and broken his commandment, such a person shall be utterly cut off and bear the guilt.', NRSV].


Point 6 : The sacrifice was specifically called a 'sin-offering', and was generally a live animal (Lev 4.1-5.13; Lev 6.24-30), although in cases of extreme destitution a grain offering could be used. Since the value of the sacrifice scaled with the means of the sinner, its value to the sinner was somewhat 'constant'.

“The cost of sacrificing an animal, which for an ancient family was the basis of its livelihood, certainly bears witness to that family's recognition of Yahweh's lordship. Animals permitted as a sacrifice were even more valuable in that they normally had to be males without defect. Thus whenever an Israelite presented an offering, the family felt the cost.” [WBC, Leviticus]


But even though the animal/offering had to be perfect, it was the procedure that counted, not the (economic) value of the offering:

“Atonement is secured, not by any value inherent in the sacrificial victim, but because sacrifice is the divinely appointed way of securing atonement. The sacrifices point us to certain truths concerning atonement. Thus the victim must always be unblemished, which indicates the necessity for perfection. The victims cost something, for atonement is not cheap, and sin is never to be taken lightly. The death of the victim was the important thing. This is brought out partly in the allusions to blood, partly in the general character of the rite itself and partly in other references to atonement. There are several allusions to atonement, either effected or contemplated by means other than the cultus, and where these bear on the problem they point to death as the way. Thus in Ex. 32:30-32 Moses seeks to make an atonement for the sin of the people, and he does so by asking God to blot him out of the book [tanknote: an appeal for penal substitution] which he has written. Phinehas made an atonement by slaying certain transgressors (Nu. 25:6-8, 13). Other passages might be cited. It is clear that in the OT it was recognized that death was the penalty for sin (Ezk. 18:20), but that God graciously permitted the death of a sacrificial victim to substitute for the death of the sinner.” [New Bible Dictionary. s.v. “Atonement”]


It was the shed blood of the sacrifice that was accepted by God in lieu of shed blood from the guilty:

“Blood has a very important role in OT rituals, not because of any inherent quality, but because the Lord has ordained that it be used for cleansing (Lev. 14) and as a means of atonement (Lev. 17:11). Just as shed blood marks the transition from life to death, so blood is used ritually to effect a transition from the realm of death to the realm of life...In rituals of atonement, the blood recalls the fact that an animal has given is life and proclaims that therefore no further bloodshed is required (*cf. Exod. 12:13, 23). The precise ways in which the blood is used, especially on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), are beyond the scope of this article, but in general terms the blood serves as a substitute, being able to ransom the life of the one who brought the animal....In rituals of cleansing, blood is the means of removing impurities that compromise the holiness of the sanctuary and altar. It has been called a 'ritual detergent' by Milgrom, who argues that blood absorbs sin and becomes unclean itself. However, Kiuchi argues persuasively that it is rather the priest who bears the guilt associated with uncleanness. The blood draws attention to the transition from the realm of death (uncleanness) to the realm of life (holiness), which takes place not in the sprinkling of the blood as such, but in the ritual act as a whole.” [New Dictionary of Biblical Theology , s.v. 'Blood']

Continue--

 

[Johann]

For the awake-n-aware Israelite, the implications of this for substitution would have been obvious:

“Given that God commanded sacrifice as a means of avoiding the punishment of death (*e.g. Num. 18:32), and that wrongful sacrifice occasionally caused death by God's direct act (e.g. Num. 16:35), it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that when intelligent worshippers in OT times presented animals for atoning ritual slaughter they understood their sacrifices to involve an element of substitution. 'The ritual retains the note of an objective guilt which can only be removed through sacrifice or substitution' (Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, p. 507).

And while the sacrifice did result in life for the worshipper, this was not because poured out blood opened a fount of poured out life. If it did, we should expect a ritual in which the victim gave up only a cup, or perhaps a litre, of blood, not its very life.

Rather it was because the shedding of blood leading to loss of life satisfied Yahweh's just demand that violation of his holy will results in death: 'The soul who sins ... will die' (Ezek. 18:4; cf. Gen. 2:17). Shedding the blood ('extinguishing the life'; cf. Lev. 17:11, 14; Deut. 12:23) of the animal was required in exchange for sparing the life of the worshipper. The death (not only symbolized but actually experienced in the fatal shedding of blood) of a sacrificial victim was necessary for the benefit of the guilty. Such OT convictions are only intensified under the new covenant (Heb. 10:28-31).” [New Dictionary of Biblical Theology , s.v. 'Sacrifice']

But it is interesting that none of the passages describing this sacrifice actually require the sacrificial animal to be the property of the offerer. In most cases, the economic-scaling factor would certainly suggest that, but it would certainly not preclude an individual (in special circumstances) from using an animal obtained through loan or gift. One can imagine a fellow Israelite loaning or even donating an animal from his own flock, to a less-fortunate friend for use in such a situation (or even some grain for the low-end offering, to someone without any resources—a picture of us humans, perhaps?--smile). There would be nothing illegal about this, from the standpoint of the legal stipulations. There are several interesting cases of such non-owned sacrifices—albeit none termed as pure 'sin' or 'guilt' offerings: the famous one where (1) God provides the ram in the thicket for Abraham—at no cost to him [Gen 22.14]; (2) Araunah offers to give the animals to David for the burnt offering to avert/stop the plague in 2 Sam 24—which David refuses on the grounds that it would not reflect a 'cost' to him; (3) 1 Sam 6.14, where the cattle pulling the cart are sacrificed; and (4) the community sin cases in Leviticus requiring a bull from the flock (since there were no 'community flocks', some specific individual had to 'donate' one of his—at no cost to the other members of the congregation). These cases would suggest that the 'ownership' of the sacrifice was not a core component in the efficacy of the sacrifice.]


Point 7 . The offender in these cases 'laid hands on' the sacrifice, before killing it and giving it to the priest. There is no explanation given in the OT/Tanaach as to why this was important (since this aspect of the ritual shows up in non-sin related events as well), or what transpired therein. Scholarly opinion is rampant on what this was all about (ranging from transfer of sin to transfer of purity, etc.), but the only sure thing we can say is that the offerer is somehow 'linked with' the sacrifice.


Point 8 . The Day of Atonement ritual is sometimes used to interpret this sin and guilt removal process, but the rituals are not close enough to do this with much confidence. In the DoA ritual, the transfer of sins from Israel (via confession) onto a substitute involved the un-slaughtered animal, not the sin-offering. That is, the sins were 'placed upon' the live animal, which was driven away into the wilderness:

“When he has finished atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat. Then Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and sending it away into the wilderness by means of someone designated for the task. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a barren region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness.” [NRSV (Le 16:20).]

This is clearly 'substitution' and clearly 'penal' and clearly an 'innocent victim' and clearly 'transfer of guilt', but we are given no explanation as to how it works (apart from the general explanation of sin as 'removable impurity').


Point 9 . However, it is clear that God honored the process He instituted for this. Sin and guilt/reparation sacrifices 'worked' (when done legally) to accomplish their main practical tasks: (a) expiation--removal of sin-caused impurity from the camp; (b) forgiveness--restoration of a right relationship between the sinner and Yahweh; and (c) remediation of some community-damage aspects—in the case of the guilt/reparation offering. But again, we simply do not know (from the OT texts) how this actually worked, in God's 'ontology':

“The rationale of the Jewish sacrificial system has been much discussed, though with no very conclusive results. Judaism provided no explicit rationale for sacrifice: it was simply the God-given way of dealing with sin, and as such was to be accepted gratefully and humbly....The precise way in which an expiatory sacrifice was thought to work is never clarified.” “ [ABD, s.v. 'atonement']


So too, in the NT:

"The NT seems to give greatest direct support to the penal substitution and sacrifice theories.

It is obvious throughout Scripture that God atones for sin via sacrifice. The problem with the theory lies in explaining how sacrifice saves. No universally accepted answer has been advanced, despite the impressive range of biblical texts using sacrificial terminology. Among these are passages referring to Jesus as the mediator of a new covenant, a covenant sealed with his blood (e.g. Matt. 26:28 par.). This implies (self-) sacrifice. So do numerous other, often overlooked, references to Jesus' blood denoting his (sacrificial) death for sin (e.g. Acts 20:28; Rom. 5:9; 1 Cor. 10:16; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; Col. 1:20; 1 Pet. 1:2, 19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 1:5; 5:9; 12:11). The prominence of sacrificial language or imagery elsewhere in the NT, whether in the Gospels (Jesus' passion predictions and the passion narrative itself), in Paul (e.g. Rom. 3:24?26; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2), or throughout Hebrews (passim), argues strongly for the centrality of sacrifice to NT atonement teaching. [New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, s.v. "Atonement"]

Now, practically speaking, it is very difficult to not see the basic outline of substitution here (as one of the above quotes indicated): the offender should have died, but was pardoned because his sacrificial animal died (given the right attitude, of course). The offender was impure when he started the process (as was the unblemished animal), and at the end of the process BOTH the offender and the animal were “pure enough, through death” (i.e., the animal was to be eaten by the priest and their families—not something allowed for impure animals). [The impurity might have 'moved' to the altar/Tabernacle, since these places had to be purified themselves at the Day of Atonement, so it's possible that God's dwelling was where 'real impurity' was 'stored' until (a) the Day of Atonement; and/or (b) the Cross truly removed the past sins (a la Romans 3).]


Point 10 . Biblical scholars have argued "often and loudly" about the meaning of 'atonement' words in the Hebrew. Some argue that these refer to 'expiation' (removal of sin from the offender, as a necessary precursor to resuming covenant-community life), and others argue that these refer to 'propitiation' (a balancing of God's moral outrage/wrath, with satisfaction of His sense/claims of justice, relative to the sin of the offender). But both seem to be clearly taught in scripture, and they both seem to be obviously related, so this distinction--although helpful--seems odd to try to 'remove' (?):

"It has been argued (e.g. by C. H. Dodd) that atonement should be understood as expiation for sin. Expiation in this sense means cancellation or dismissal. God simply waives the threatened penalty for transgressions. R. Averbeck argues that there is good ground for understanding the piel Hebrew verb form of kpr, often translated as atone or atonement, as denoting to wipe away, wipe clean, purge (see e.g. Lev. 16:20, 33; Deut. 32:43; Dan. 9:24; Is. 47:11). He suggests that "the underlying rationale of OT kpr was wipe away, not ransom?" (NIDOTTE 2, p. 708).

Averbeck's lengthy discussion makes little mention of either divine wrath or human sinfulness, though these are prominent in the background of OT atonement passages. ...Others point out that atonement seems rather to involve propitiation, the turning away of wrath by an offering. It does not merely expiate in the sense of dismissing sin; it propitiates in the sense of averting God's punishment. Linguistic work by L. Morris and others appears to have refuted the expiation theory as Dodd and his supporters have presented it. Recent Romans commentators like Moo, Mounce and Stott have upheld Morris' arguments, as have I. H. Marshall and others. Current Septuagint lexicography points in the same direction (J. Lust, E. Eynikel, K. Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, pp. 160-161)....Atonement takes on its importance, urgency, and poignancy precisely because God's righteous judgment is coming upon humans and their unrighteous ways.

Jesus' death not only expiates sin (wipes away its penalty); it also propitiates (turns away the wrath of) God's promised punishment of sin and sinners whose transgressions are not atoned for.

In the current climate of skepticism about a wrathful God, the biblical view has recently received strong support from philosopher H. Cassirer, who persuasively calls Christians away from modern sentimentalism and back to the God of whom the prophets, apostles and Jesus spoke (Grace and Law [Grand Rapids, 1988], pp. 99-107). Propitiation is not a peripheral but a vitally important implication of their references to atonement and its absolute necessity." [Alexander, T. D., & Rosner, B. S. (2001). New Dictionary of Biblical Theology]

"A word which perhaps comes even closer to the meaning of atonement is propitiation (hilasmos). J. 1. Packer sees propitiation as the nucleus and focal point of the whole New Testament idea of the saving work of Christ.' In Isaiah the Messiah figure is depicted as "an offering for sin" (53:10). In 1 John we read: "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (2:2 KJ; cf 4:10; Rom. 3:25). Some scholars (e.g., C. H. Dodd and Alan Richardson) have objected to the translating of this word as propitiation; their preference is expiation.

In some cases to be sure the latter may be the more appropriate translation, but both words are solidly biblical.' As A. A. Hodge puts it: "Propitiation has reference to the bearing or effect of satisfaction upon God. Expiation has reference to the bearing of the same satisfaction upon the guilt of sin."'

Whereas God's wrath is propitiated or turned away, man's guilt is expiated or annulled. Both terms are organically related to the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, though they both transcend the meaning of ritual sacrifice.

Expiation is especially evident in Isaiah 43:25 where the prophet says that God "blots out your transgressions" and "will not remember your sins."...The integral relationship between the two terms is underlined by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: "Surely the very idea of expiation in and of itself leads to propitiation! If there must be expiation, why must there be propitiation? There is only one answer -that there cannot be a true relationship between God and man until that sin has been expiated. But that is just another way of saying propitiation.'"...Propitiation can only be understood in the light of the wrath of God, the severity of the reaction of God's holiness to man's sin. God's inviolable holiness needs to be satisfied, and man's transgressions need to be removed. This is realized when God himself takes upon himself in the person of his Son our sin and guilt so that his justice might be executed and our sins might be forgiven. God is moved toward this self-sacrifice by his infinite compassion." [Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Volume 1p149f]

"Those who seek to reduce the concept of propitiation to a mere expiation do not, in general, face the questions which expiation raises, such as 'Why should sin be expiated?' 'What would be the consequences to man if there were no expiation?' 'Would the hand of God be in those consequences?' It seems evident on the scriptural view that if sin is not expiated, if men 'die in their sins', then they have the divine displeasure to face, and this is but another way of saying that the wrath of God abides upon them. It seems that expiation is necessary in order to avert the wrath of God, so that nothing seems to be gained by abandoning the concept of propitiation." [Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (3rd ed), p.211]

Continue--

 

[Johann]

Point 11. Of course, these ceremonies addressed only some of the consequences of the sin (albeit very important ones). There were still many, many damage-ripples which would not have been stopped by these. Loss of trust in the community, a weakening of the moral constitution of the offender Israelite, irreparable damage to property in some cases, disgrace in the eyes of the Gentiles, etc. These aspects of sin are simply NOT transferable (as one of our opening quotes noted)--some consequences of sin are inward, but some are not. If I kill someone, the effects on them (i.e., death) do not become part of my 'character' or 'ethical personality'. The effects on their family (e.g. loss of economic viability, deep grief, change of status, etc.) do not become part of my 'character' or 'ethical personality'. But any remorse (or, for that matter, any callousness over the act) DOES become part of me—but this is not 'merit' or 'demerit' at all. Clearly, 'callousness' or 'remorse' cannot be born by a substitute—the notion is ludicrous. [But this doesn't mean that SOME aspects ARE NOT transferable-- but more on this later.]

...........................................................

This is a quick sketch of the Mosaic Law (re: sacrificial system), as given at the onset of Israel's national emergence and history, so, before we get into how that system was 'experienced' and understood by the OT/Tanaach prophets (and by post-Tanaach Judaism), let's just visit the legality/morality questions briefly.


If we accept that the animal sacrifice was somehow a substitute for the offender, and that its death was in lieu of, and to preclude the pragmatic requirement for, the death of the actual Israelite, how would we assess the legality and/or morality of this act?


Well, the legality aspect is really a non-issue, since such matters are usually judged from within a legal system. Since such sacrifice was prescribed in the legal code, its (correct) usage would be perfectly legal—within that system of law. For that matter, anything within an individual legal system is 'legal', since its reference framework is the law code.

That being said, however, we 'moderns' do tend to pass judgment on other cultures' law codes (tn: I was taught 35 years ago in sociology class to call that 'ethnocentrism'...smile), presumably based upon our conceptions of what 'enlightened' ethics should look like. So, for example, the West might judge an Islamic Shariah penal amputation of a hand for stealing a cabbage as 'harsh' (maybe even 'wrong'), but we couldn't really say it was 'illegal' per se.

Some groups, of course, attempt to formulate universal 'rights' policies/positions (e.g., human rights groups, the Geneva Convention, the Berne Convention--smile), and on the basis of these consensus-looking proclamations denounce (“as unethical” and/or “contrary to fundamental human rights”) atrocities, torture, and other behavior in individual nations/dictatorships/etc. But there is no real 'universal legal system' known to/admitted to by humans that 'sits above' national legal codes. We might call an ancient Mesopotamia trial-by-drowning procedure 'barbaric', or a ransom-a-murderer-by-money law as being 'convenient for the rich', but our ability to judge it as being 'illegal' just doesn't exist.

In the US, for example, a Federal Court could strike down a State law, since there is an explicit legal hierarchy (assuming the law in question deals with a matter that seemingly falls under BOTH jurisdictions, of course) in our national structure. But, the United Nations could not strike down a French parking law, nor could the Screen Actors Guild nullify a building permit in Burma.



Now, morality (what these groups seem to be vocal about) might be a different matter, especially since morality seems so 'individualistic'. Everybody seems to have an opinion on the morality of the actions of others (smile), and you can generally find more than one person (i.e., enough to constitute a group) who have the same approval/disapproval perspective, relative to some act. But it normally takes a very large group and a very varied group of individuals to condemn something, before the rest of us even begin to seriously question the morality of the acts/behavior in question.

In the case of the OT/Tanaach animal sacrifices described above, I would guess there would probably be complaints from animal rights groups (?), and/or 'ethical vegetarian' groups (a la Gandhi?), but these complaints would be more about the slaughter/consumption of the animals—and NOT about 'penal substitution' itself. [For example, they would complain about using animals for the sacrifices, but NOT complain about using grain for one, in those cases of poverty. This would indicate that it was not the 'substitution' aspect that was the source of the problem for them.] Apart from these specialist groups, though, I would suspect very little 'outcry', since (1) the animals were used for 'good' community purposes, food, group cohesion, etc., and (2) there wouldn't be a large amount of such sacrifices to begin with—on economic grounds alone, given a pastoral society. And even the notion of 'transferring' the sins of a nation onto a goat and then setting the goat free from captivity in a remote location—while it might seem 'odd' to moderns—wouldn't seem 'immoral' at all to most. There's just not enough 'morality density' in a herd animal (relative to a clearly human agent) to arouse 'enough bile' over using it for ceremonial food—except perhaps in religious traditions involving wholesale reincarnation (in which the lamb MIGHT actually 'house' the soul of some ancient personage).

[We should note, just for completeness, that the animal was not subjected to any of the 'artificial' husbandry tactics complained about by some today. These animals had no growth hormones, restrictive cages, etc., and their slaughter was done in the same quick way butchering has been done for millennia.]

But of course, it could be that we don't get very upset about this because we don't perhaps take the 'system' as seriously as we will the Cross. After all, although the notion of substitution is here in this sacrificial process, it's fairly 'weak' or 'mild', and the substitute is of questionable 'innocent moral agent' standing. Plus, since the perp had to make everything right with the community/neighbor/victim BEFORE the sacrifice anyway, our 'injustice alarm' probably only hums for a brief second, instead of doing the constant car-alarm, siren-wailing thing.

........................................................................................


Now, there's a gap between the giving of this Mosaic Law and the New Testament of well over a thousand years, and during this gap, Biblical Israel learned a lot about the problem of sin...

By the time we get to the New Testament, certain groups within Judaism of the day recognized that the sacrificial system in the Law was simply 'not big enough' to REALLY deal with the sin problem—since it had become clear (to the Hebrew Prophets) over the centuries how 'big' this sin problem REALLY was:

You see, when the Mosaic law was first given to Israel, the emphasis was actually on inner motives--"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul"...Consistently, Moses told the community to pay attention to their hearts and motives, and to not 'harden them', etc. The whole system was predicated on from-the-heart obedience and interaction with God. Yet it was clear from the start, that it was the heart that was the real problem. Right in the middle of re-stating the Law in Deut, God's heart cries out (5.29).

"Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear me and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever!"

And this is the problem that the prophets see over and over, in trying to get biblical Israel to 'walk with their God'...


The OT/Tanaach prophets will discover how 'deep' this sin problem in us really is, and how 'incurable' and pervasive and putrid and insidious it is, and will have to plead for/point to some cosmically-loaded, ultimacy-strength, ontologically-dense solution to the angry, malicious, arrogant, violent hatred of God/good/beauty, which we simply call 'sin'...as if it's just another 'normal' part of our world...Toward the end of the First Temple period, Jeremiah can despair in this (e.g., 11.8; 16.12; 17.1) and the famous 17.9: "The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse—who can understand it?" [NRSV]. As time goes on, the biblical writers become more and more aware of how intractable, resistant, and resilient evil is. All attempts at reform fail miserably, in the biblical record...

The OT/Tanaach prophets learn by experience how utterly futile the existing covenantal law is, in changing the hearts of the people--and so a New Covenant is pleaded for (and pre-announced) before God--the New Covenant of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, in which the very heart itself is re-created (with a heart for God and His law already in place!). A place where 'sin is no more', and we can 'start over' with a fresh, un-soiled and un-vandalized Universe! And, most importantly, with God in our midst...

The Book of Hebrews in the New Testament is quite candid/pragmatic about the limitations of the old system (especially since the Prophets had already explained the problem with the human heart earlier), in a number of 'bubble-bursting' ways:

It should be obvious to anyone that the 'blood of bulls and goats can never REALLY take away REAL God-repudiating, universe-destroying sin'--substitution issues aside, even the value-mismatch between the human moral agent and the animal is too great;

If the offender had been REALLY purified (on the inside), there wouldn't have been a need for more than one sacrifice, per person, per lifetime;

If the Day of Atonement had REALLY solved Israel's sin problem, they wouldn't have had to do it every single year;

If the system had REALLY worked, the High Priest wouldn't have had to offer sacrifices for his own repeated sins every year too...

In other words, the Mosaic system allowed God to dwell in their midst 'enough' for salvation-history to proceed, but the end goal of perfect/sweet fellowship and community (a la Eden, a la The New Jerusalem, a la the Rabbinic New Age/World to Come) between God and Israel/humanity was not going to be possible without something closer in “magnitude” to the unfathomably deep corrosion/decay/nullity of sin, than simply a few unblemished farm animals...

Continue--

 

[Johann]

As I reflect on this now, I am so aware and disturbed by the immensity/intensity/density (?) of the tiniest act of real evil...I cannot even find words 'violent enough' to describe what that really IS—it's beyond simple destruction or impurity or dissonance...its ontology is so different than that of our universe....beyond negation, beyond privation, beyond “anti-matter” (which has structure and order to IT, at least)...a conscious, malicious, vandal-virus?...worse than 'chaos' or 'disorder'...the very opposite(?) of the reality/essence of God Himself?...what could possibly 'undo that'? Maybe nothing—maybe that's why we have to have a New Heavens and a New Earth—evil has worm-holed this one to near nothingness...? And maybe for any of us to make it to a New World, the 'purification' of ourselves has to be so immense/intense/dense that only an act at the intensity level of God Himself can remove that horror-grower, malice-maker, beauty-slasher aspect of our character...



Okay, let me calm down for a second...

One of the earliest expressions of the extreme difficulties of making a "warm and dancing peace" between our tainted lives and the pure and beautiful God comes in the important (to our discussion) passage in Isaiah 53. In this passage, we have a clear statement of 'sacrificial substitution' (which is actually broader than just 'legal/penal substitution', btw). Here is a fairly close translation (NASV) of the passage. Notice two things: (1) statements which reveal that God's servant is a gift of God to Israel to restore 'peace' between them [He is actually called a 'guilt/reparation offering' in verse 10]; and (2) statements which reveal how the 'heart of Israel' responded to this gift so inappropriately:

For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground;

He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.

He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; [Note: an interesting human response to God's Servant...]

And like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. [Note: Israel would not honor this Servant]

Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; [Note: these particular consequences of sin were 'borne' by this One; He was a 'man of sorrows', but they were not HIS sorrows!]

Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. [Note: They judged Him as being evil enough to earn God's pre-death, Mosaic-law-curse punishment.]

But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities ;The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. [Note: the violence against the Servant was 'vicarious' and its benefits fell upon Israel. But note also, that the types of wounds are NOT those used in sacrifices--no one 'scourged' or 'crushed' the lambs/goats. This is a malevolence toward the sacrifice?]

All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. [Note: Everybody else is guilty of covenant breaking, but the guilt of this was somehow 'thrown' onto the Servant--by GOD.]

He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. [Note: The Servant didn't complain about this apparent substitution/"injustice" at all.]

By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered [Note: sacrifices weren't 'oppressed'--this is beyond the sacrificial requirements. And, the Servant suffered the ultimate legal penalty--'taken away' or 'cut off' from the Community of the Blessed]

That He was cut off out of the land of the living, For the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due? [Note: No one appreciated/recognized that His being 'cut off' was for the people--to whom it was actually due? They were getting a pardon--without even knowing it! Again, no one 'stroked' the sacrificial animals...]

His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, [Note: He was still vilified after His death.]

Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. [Note: the Servant/sacrifice was unblemished]

But the Lord was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; [Note: The injustice of crushing a perfectly righteous Israelite makes no sense in OT theology--unless this Unblemished One is offered (voluntarily) and accepted (by God) as a substitutionary sacrifice for the good of others (as in the next phrase...)

If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, [Note: Here is that 'guilt' offering, sacrificial word.]

He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. [Note: somehow the 'being cursed' will end, and then the Servant will be a channel of the Lord's 'good pleasure'--a means of immense blessings]

As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; [Note: the 'satisfaction' of God--propitiation, in theological terms--was a result of the Servant's 'anguish']

By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. [Note: justification is by His 'bearing their iniquities', yet God calls the sin-bearer "the Righteous One"!! And He was 'servant'--fulfilling the wishes of His Lord--the healing of Israel!]

Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; [Note: Even after this accursed death, with its blessings for His people, the Servant is re-instated into God's blessing and exaltation--]

Because He poured out Himself to death, [Note: it was voluntary, and it was fatal, but the end result of His death was a 'great portion' and a 'share of the spoils of His victory'. ]

And was numbered with the transgressors; [Note: The Righteous Servant is identified with the 'rebels'--as being one of them.]

Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors. [Note: Here is both the Priestly and sacrificial images merged--a la Hebrews.]


Now, at first glance this looks like a statement of our 'problem'--the innocent suffering in place of the guilty (who even were attacking and denigrating that very sacrifice!). But we might note a few 'odd' aspects to this before we get to the full explication of the 'theory' in the New Testament.

Whatever this was, it is cast in sacrificial terminology. "Guilt offering", "bearing sin", "satisfaction" (i.e., "propitiation"), unblemished, etc.

But this sacrifice was NOT offered by Israel--!--it seems to be a 'conspiracy' between only God and the Servant. Nobody else in the narrative 'gets it'.

It's clearly voluntary on the part of the Servant (without any actual protestation), and fully accepted as efficacious by God.

It's clearly fatal for the Servant, life-giving (or at least, purifying and death-defying) for Israel, and the noble act of the Servant is greatly blessed and honored by God.

Israel's attitude toward the Servant/Sacrifice ranges from simple ignorance, to outright vilification.

God's attitude toward the Servant is uniformly one of admiration, commendation, exaltation, blessing, reward--even though He is visiting extreme punishment upon Him!

There is no indication in the text that Israel herself did any of the violence against the Servant [e.g., all the "damage" could have been done by non-Jews, while they simply watched. This is the general tone of the "we esteemed Him smitten" type comments--they watched the Servant, and despised Him, under the assumption that He was being 'crushed for His own iniquities' instead of for theirs.]

These 'third party' violence-doers do not seem to be offering the Servant as a sacrifice either.

There might be an implied resurrection in here, since the Servant is both 'cut off' and yet seems to have quite a glorious future.

Continue--

 

[Johann]

But what is really odd about this is the timing element:

Israel is clearly deserving of "the stroke" as transgressors, but there is no indication in the text that any 'court proceedings' for them have commenced yet. That is, they would clearly be found guilty--if/when the trial process had been completed--but it does not look like their trial has gotten to the sentencing stage (if it has even begun). The full and Final Judgment Day for their covenant unfaithfulness and anti-God hearts was still future--it had not gone to trial yet. [They have not been 'indicted' yet.]

The future results of the yet-future sentencing, of course, were already defined in the law codes--the 'blessings and curses' lists had long been established. It's just that the 'final level' of punishments (complete alienation from God and His blessings, and the outpouring of God's judicial wrath-punishment) had not been 'reached', in the current status of 'legal proceedings'. [One might argue that the OT/Tanaach deals largely with 'discovery' procedures.]

God had just been postponing this future Day of Reckoning, and postponing, and postponing (in patience)...


But unexpectedly, God and His Righteous Servant has 'gone on the offensive' and done a 'pre-emptive strike' against the future.

The Righteous Servant--a pure, Yahweh-hearted, non-rebel Israelite--appears in the midst of the sinful nation, as a member.

He is not a 'plug in', but is a genealogically-pure Israelite, under the Law, under the Covenant.

As such, though, He "permitted himself to be listed among the rebels" (v12) ("rebels"--"God's strongest term of condemnation for his people [in Isaiah] (cf. 1.2; 46.8; 48.8; 57.4; 59.12-13; 66.24)" [NICOT, in loc]).

[This would have meant--importantly--that He would have been 'vulnerable' to any of the Covenant judgments of God upon the nation. He could have died (innocently) in the plague associated with David's census, He could have been captured (innocently) on any of the Amorite slave trading raids during the period of the Judges, He could have been a slain prophet (innocent) under the evil Northern kings. He was Israelite--pure or not--and that meant that the judgments of God on the community could legitimately fall upon Him in the process. He could have been totally righteous/innocent, and still be the object of God's judgment upon the sins of the nation-as-a-whole (as undoubtedly some/many believers were). The case of Achan's trespass--in which wrath fell on the entire nation for the sin of one man--Josh 22.18ff and 7.1ff--saw 36 innocent men killed, because of the sin of another--they were simply linked by being 'numbered together' as a unit before God. ]

But what happens next is amazing (and it blows away the Apostle Paul in his day too--more on this later, below): this card-carrying Jew, in cooperation with and under the wise direction of the Covenant Yahweh, volunteers to face the future judgment NOW, as an Israelite.

[Now, Yahweh has been 'storing up wrath' for this Future Judgment/ Day of God/etc. since Day One. Every time a sacrificial animal was offered for forgiveness, the mismatch between the HUGE anti-value of the sin and the limited-value of the farm animal, became another 'underpaid justice claim' in the 'wrath backlog' -- cf. Romans 3.23:"...the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed, was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous... ". This is not to mention all the countless sins people did without ANY attempt at remediation, confession, reformation, etc. And of course, His wrath had been accumulating against us gentiles too (e.g., Rom 1.18), for equally good reasons. This wrath was gonna be poured out upon the whole world--the 'list of rebels'-- as a whole.]

So, in response to the request of the Only Righteous One's intercession and request, Yahweh brings the Future Judgment Day (with its storehouse of penal wrath) into the present "day" of JUST THE SERVANT. The Servant had volunteered to "step into the Future", while being still "in the present", and that's what God does.

God starts Final Judgment Day for the World--but the "world in this Day" only has One Person in it--the Servant, who is 'listed among the rebels'.

And so--can I stop and worship here for a minute?!--the Wrath of God, ultimately destined for the whole world of rebels, truly, justly, and exhaustively falls upon the 'whole world of rebels' (i.e., "the-world-of-rebels-as-a-whole")--which in this case contains only one 'rebel on the list'-- the Servant. [Theologians would call this the 'eschatological judgment of God, irrupting into the present".]

The Servant is representative of Israel, but it might be because He is 'all Israel' who 'showed up at' this transcendent act of Judgment. [cf. "out of Egypt have I called my Son...", as applied to Israel-as-a-whole and to Jesus in the New Testament] (and later we learn He is also the 'only Adam' present in the judgment, letting us broken-down gentiles avail ourselves of His act).

And in this act of bearing the future-wrath in the present, Yahweh creates a massively valued, "pre-sacrificed" guilt offering available to all His people--TOTALLY commensurate with the TRUE malignance of evil..

And--precious upon precious--this Sacrificial Lamb, with the wrath-issue so settled, 'drags' us the sinners to the reconciling altar of God, instead of the reverse! Gone are the days when the sinner had to drag the animal!--"the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" brings US to be purified, to be reconciled with a loving God, and to be re-created in newness for a life of loving, serving, and enjoying God...


Now, before we proceed to the New Testament for its explication of the Atonement (and our evaluation of it), there are two other neat things to notice about this passage:

The first concerns the use of 'guilt/reparation' offering, instead of 'sin' offering. We had noticed earlier, that the sin offering was mostly for offenses against God, and the guilt offering typically involved reparations toward God and toward humanity. Under our textbook description:

“The guilt offering is described in Lev. 5:14-6:7 (MT 5:14-26); 7:1-7. It is different from the sin offering chiefly in the restitution requirement. The offerer has to make good on any loss that he has made in the holy things of the Lord and pay an additional fifth of its cost to the priest (5:16). Damages against another person are also dealt with in 6:1-7 (MT 5:20-26), where the one-fifth restitution clause is also in effect. This offering also atones for the sacrificer and he is forgiven. The sin offering deals with sins against God that also threaten the community. The guilt offering deals more with sins that require restitution to God or man.” [ISBE, s.v. “Sacrifices and Offerings”]

Now, when we ask 'why here?', do we find perhaps a hint of the New Covenant?

Hmm-
Continue--

 

[Johann]

"The most intriguing reference to the reparation offering occurs in Isa 53:10, in which the servant's death is described as a reparation offering. ... While interpretations of Isa 53 vary widely, the traditional Christian interpretation holds that the servant suffers and dies vicariously for mankind's sin. His death is an atoning sacrifice. The choice of reparation-offering to describe his sacrificial death may be twofold. First, it communicates that the servant's death compensates God fully for the damages he has incurred by mankind's sinning. Second, the servant's sacrifice provides expiation for every kind of sin, inadvertent and intentional. That is, the servant's sacrifice provides expiation for any person who appropriates its merits to himself, no matter how grave his sin." [Hartley, J. E. (2002). Vol. 4: Word Biblical Commentary : Leviticus. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 80).]

When I look at this last statement, and I ask the "now, WHERE are the reparation goods?" question, I have a hard time finding anything of that type immediately obvious. But upon 'more sober reflection' (yeah, right), two realities emerge:

(1) the passage actually changes some Israelites [they are healed, made righteous, achieve peace with God]--that could be a form of 'reparations', obviously:

"From the Servant's sense of accomplishment and satisfaction when his offering is accepted, the verse (11) moves to discuss exactly what is accomplished. The statement is startling in both its simplicity and its daring. This man, by what he has done, will make people righteous! it is not difficult to understand why he should be declared the Righteous One. He has been treated shamelessly because of the sins of others when he himself has been completely innocent. But how can he make many become righteous? The entire book has been about the persistent sin and unbelief of the chosen people, not to mention the world at large. This man will change all that in a sentence?...This man is the Deliverer who fulfills all the promises of deliverance for the people." [NICOT, in loc.]

(2) in the New Covenant, we get even greater benefits--we get 'portable Temples', which travel about, sharing reconciliation, creating newness, having festivals, displaying beauty, causing reflection, creating community, healing breaches, revealing God, and creating MORE such Temples...now this is something in the same 'order of magnitude' for good/truth/beauty, as sin/evil was in its destructive effects. In other words, the supernatural forces of reconciliation and redemption and renewal are 'procured' and 'unleashed'(?) in this Reparation Offering. [One immediately thinks of John 7.39: "...this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified"--cf. Joel 2.28 and Acts 1.4.]


The second concerns an 'odd' parallel with a New Testament passage (smile). NICOT on verse 12:

"In this context...brings to mind Phil. 2:9. In faithfulness the Servant has descended to the lowest depths. He has fulfilled his Father's will to the last degree. Because of that faithful obedience, God will exalt him to the highest heights (cf. 52:13). The picture is of a victory parade with the Servant, of all people, marching in the role of conqueror, bringing home the spoils of conquest...What is the cause of the Servant's exaltation? The simple forcefulness of the statement seems designed to leave no doubt in the reader's mind: it is the voluntary self-sacrifice of the Servant whereby he became identified with the transgressors dying their death so that they could live. If one had any doubt about how to read the poem, this last verse should dispel it...strangely enough, by dying their death he was somehow interceding for them ('the rebels'). As Westerman points out, this intercession was not merely the act of praying for them; it was intervention, as 59:16 makes plain. There was no one to step into the gap between the rebels and their just destruction, so the Servant did it with his own blood (Heb 9:12-14). Thus as noted above, the writer wants to remove any doubt from the reader's mind: the Servant will be exalted to the highest heaven (52:13) not because he was humiliated (although he was), not because he suffered unjustly (although he did), not because he did it voluntarily (although he did), but because it was all in order to carry the sin of the world away to permit God's children to come home to him. He is exalted because he fulfilled God's purpose for his ministry, and that purpose was redemption."

........................................


The New Testament.

When we get to the NT, the meaning of the Cross of Christ is presented in many, many different ways. Dilling ["The Atonement and Human Sacrifice", Grace Theological Journal, 1998] gives a quick sketch of some of the major themes:

(1) Sacrificial: For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ (1 Cor 5:7).

(2) Expiatory: For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Heb 9:13-14).

(3) Propitiatory: Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10).

(4) Redemptive: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree (Gal 3:13).

(5) Representative: For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again (2 Cor 5:14-15).

(6) Exemplary: For hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps (1 Pet 2:21).

(7) Triumphantorial: You, I say, did he make alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses; having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; having despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it (Col 2:15).

(8) Substitutionary: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed (Isa 53:5-6).

To this list we might add

(9) Reconciliation: "For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son..." (Rom 5.10)

(10) Priestly/Intercessory: "Hence, also, He is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself...but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption...For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’ presence...Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people..." (Heb 7.25,26; 9.11, 24, 28)

(11) New Covenant Inaugurator (and actually, Old Covenant 'salvager'?): "For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God! For this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, because a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant." (Heb 9.13ff)

Continue--

 

[Johann]

Now, before we get to the more technical discussion of legal "transfer" of guilt, punishment, standing, or whatever, I want us--speaking only to the Christians here (the rest of you can/should probably skip this Excursus and move down to the rest of the article)-- to be very clear on one fact: Every one of the Atonement Representations above involve either the element of 'substitution' and/or 'sacrifice' (but the 'penal' concept is not pervasive throughout, of course). There is no option here--fidelity to the message of the New Testament (and much of the OT/Tanaach, obviously) requires that this element of substitution/sacrifice be taken very, very seriously. Some Christians may not like that obviously core element of how we are reclaimed to life, but the construction of an alternative explanation for this core is a difficult, dangerous, and doubtful enterprise.

[This in NO WAY--let me hasten to add--answers our question here!!!! This article is trying to explore the why/how, not simply 'resting on' the what/that. For the purposes of our discussion HERE, the fact that Jesus, Isaiah, Paul--and GOD the Father taught it as truth, beauty, the marvelous means of free grace, and used it to reclaim our lost lives is ("epistemically") inconsequential. My remarks to the Christian here is simply to make the point clear that there is 'no exit' here--the whole 'system' rises/falls with the reality of the work of Jesus on the Cross--as presented in the only real data we have about the 'other side', our Bible.]

Let me say this another way, because it is important for Christians (obviously not the only readers of this article, of course) to understand the implications of any rejection of substitution/sacrifice, under allegations of illegality, immorality, unintelligibility, antiquarian, accommodationist, or simple ignorance by the NT authors/Jesus:

(1) To reject this as being the central "mechanism" of the work of Christ on the Cross requires one to construct an alternative explanation as to how all the problems addressed by the various 'representations' above are solved thereby--and be able to defend that biblically and theologically without the same level or greater difficulties than those incurred in the above 'traditional' views [I consider this to be nigh-on impossible, given what I know about theology at this point in my life, btw]. For example, consider just these representations by significant theologians/expositors, dealing, in this case, (primarily) with issues of God's justice/wrath and reconciliation:

"The danger of overemphasizing God's wrath does exist. But it hardly justifies the impossible programme of trying to expunge the attribute from the NT record. God's coming wrath is a persistent theme of Jesus' parables. In non-parabolic discourse Jesus spoke repeatedly of 'the fire of hell' (Matt. 5:22) and 'eternal fire' (Matt. 18:8). He urged his followers, 'Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell' (Luke 12:5). The double-edged nature of Jesus' ministry is well summarized in John 3:36: 'Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.' Those who reject God's righteousness become targets of his wrath (Rom. 1:18, 24, 26, 28; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6; Heb. 10:26-31; Rev. 19:11-21). God's wrath is not a minor or isolated biblical theme....Atonement takes on its importance, urgency, and poignancy precisely because God's righteous judgment is coming upon humans and their unrighteous ways. Jesus' death not only expiates sin (wipes away its penalty); it also propitiates (turns away the wrath of) God's promised punishment of sin and sinners whose transgressions are not atoned for... Propitiation is not a peripheral but a vitally important implication of their references to atonement and its absolute necessity." [Alexander, T. D., & Rosner, B. S. (2001). New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (electronic ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press., s.v. "Atonement"]

"If critics of God’s saving activity declare God’s method of reconciling the world to himself unworthy, or as lacking in ethical virtue, or as in some way insufficient or deficient, the fact must nonetheless stand that the Scripture speaks of the altered judicial situation now existing between God and sinners as resulting from Christ’s work, the imputation of sin upon him, and the imputation of his righteousness upon sinners. Moreover, Scripture never loses sight of the sweeping extent of Christ’s work, the atonement for the sins of all people (Jn 3:16; 1 Jn 2:2). Christ is the sinners’ shield from and before the just wrath of God. Nor was it merely by God’s accepting it as sufficient that Christ’s atonement availed; it was in fact and in truth the adequate and full payment (Mt 20:28; Rom 3:25; Heb 7:26–28; 1 Tm 2:6; 1 Jn 2:2)." [Elwell, W. A., & Beitzel, B. J. (1988). Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible.(Page 1824). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.]

"The sin of mankind produces a changed attitude toward each other on the part of both God and mankind. God holds no personal pique against a person because of his sin. The NT language is very carefully chosen to avoid any statement that would seem to convey such a conception. Yet God’s holy righteousness is such that He cannot be indifferent to sin. His wrath must rest upon the disobedient (Jn. 3:36; Rom. 1:18). It is not merely impersonal. It is not enough to say He hates the sin. Man’s unrighteousness has not merely alienated him from God, but also God from him. The word “enemies” (Gk echthro') of Rom. 5:10 is passive, and means the object of God’s enmity (...). It was because of this fact that God set forth Christ to be a propitiation, to show His righteousness because of the passing over of sins done aforetime (3:25f). God’s passing over the sins of pre-Christian times, without inflicting punishment, was liable to obscure His righteousness and expose Him to the charge of tolerating sin. God could not be true to Himself while He tolerated such an imputation, and so instead of visiting punishment upon all who sinned — which would have been one way of showing His righteousness — He set forth Christ to death (“in his blood”), and in this way placed Himself beyond the imputation of unrighteousness while enabling Him to show mercy to sinners. The effect of sin upon man was to estrange him from God, to lead him farther and farther away from his Maker. Each successive sin produced a greater barrier between the two. Now the atonement was designed to remove the cause of this estrangement and restore the former relationship between God and mankind. This too, it has been observed, is the purpose of forgiveness, so that the atonement finds its completion in forgiveness. It should be noted that the reconciliation originates with God and not with mankind (Rom. 3:25; 2 Cor. 5:19). God woos a person before the person seeks God. The effect of the atonement is the removal of God’s alienation from mankind. The recognition of the love and grace of God manifest in this reconciliation, and the experience of forgiveness flowing from it, evoke the response of love and win the hearts of people. “We love, because he first loved us.” At the same time the atonement is such a complete expression of both the love and the righteousness of God that, while on the one hand it exhibits His yearning for mankind, on the other it shows that He is not tolerant toward sin. In the atonement of Christ, therefore, is the meeting place and the reconcilement of God’s holy horror of sin and the free bestowal of forgiveness upon penitent believers." [Bromiley, G. W. (1988; 2002). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Vol. 2, Page 343). Wm. B. Eerdmans]

"To Paul the estrangement which the Christian reconciliation has to overcome is indubitably two-sided; there is something in God as well as something in man which has to be dealt with before there can be peace. Nay, the something on God’s side is so incomparably more serious that in comparison with it the something on man’s side simply passes out of view. It is God’s earnest dealing with the obstacle on His own side to peace with man which prevails on man to believe in the seriousness of His love, and to lay aside distrust. It is God’s earnest dealing with the obstacle on His own side which constitutes the reconciliation; the story of it is “the word of reconciliation”; when men receive it, they receive (Rom. v. 10) the reconciliation. “Reconciliation” in the New Testament sense is not something which we accomplish when we lay aside our enmity to God; it is something which God accomplished when in the death of Christ He put away everything that on His side meant estrangement, so that He might come and preach peace. To deny this is to take St. Paul s Gospel away root and branch. He always conceives the Gospel as the revelation of God’s wisdom and love in view of a certain state of affairs as subsisting between God and man. Now, what is the really serious element in this situation? What is it that makes a Gospel necessary? What is it that the wisdom and love of God undertake to deal with, and do deal with, in that marvellous way which constitutes the Gospel? Is it man’s distrust of God? is it man’s dislike, fear, antipathy, spiritual alienation? Not if we accept the Apostle’s teaching. The serious thing which makes the Gospel necessary, and the putting away of which constitutes the Gospel, is God’s condemnation of the world and its sin; it is God’s wrath, “revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (Rom. i. 16–18). The putting away of this is “reconciliation”: the preaching of this reconciliation is the preaching of the Gospel....When St. Paul says that God has given him the ministry of reconciliation, he means that he is a preacher of this peace. He ministers reconciliation to the world. His work has no doubt a hortatory side, as we shall see, but that side is secondary. It is not the main part of his vocation to tell men to make their peace with God, but to tell them that God has made peace with the world. At bottom, the Gospel is not good advice, but good news. All the good advice it gives is summed up in this—Receive the good news. But if the good news be taken away; if we cannot say, God has made peace, God has dealt seriously with His condemnation of sin, so that it no longer stands in the way of your return to Him; if we cannot say, Here is the reconciliation, receive it,—then for man’s actual state we have no Gospel at all....When Christ’s work was done, the reconciliation of the world was accomplished. When men were called to receive it, they were called to a relation to God, not in which they would no more be against Him—though that is included—but in which they would no more have Him against them. There would be no condemnation thenceforth to those who were in Christ Jesus....The very universality of the expression—reconciling a world to Himself—is consistent only with an objective reconciliation. It cannot mean that God was overcoming the world’s enmity (though that is the ulterior object) it means that God was putting away His own condemnation and wrath. When this was done, He could send, and did send, men to declare that it was done; and among these men, none had a profounder appreciation of what God had wrought, and what he himself had to declare as God’s glad tidings, than the Apostle Paul." [Denny, cited by RP Martin, WBC, 2 Cor]

"...the biblical witness warns us so emphatically of God's wrath. In the Old Testament, but also in the New, we find this unassailable accent. If we look at the very heart of the Gospel (the Gospel of joy!) and the very context of an invitation to faith, we already hear the piercing ring of Christ's words: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him' (John 3:36). Here the Gospel does not shift its course and flow in a different direction. John the Baptist already, pointing to the Lamb of God, specifically mentioned in his preaching of the Kingdom the reality of wrath. When he saw the Pharisees with their tainted motives presenting themselves for baptism he reprimanded them: 'You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?' (Matt 3:7). He who refuses to reckon with God's wrath must find the New Testament completely incomprehensible. But more than that; for the scriptural injunctions on God's wrath do not suggest an original or primitive concept which may soon be overcome. They indicate, instead, the relation between the sin of man and the wrath of god. Man, in his intransigence and impenitence, 'stores up wrath' for the 'day of wrath' and the final revelation of the righteous judgment of God (Rom. 2:5; cf. II Pet. 3:7). Yet there is also the sound of jubilee: Jesus 'delivers us from the wrath to come' (I Thess. 1;10). The Gospel neither eliminates our human 'ignorance' nor takes away our human 'misunderstanding'; at the same time, our broken communion is restored and our lostness is reversed in a new and surprising 'being found'. Divine forgiveness is never, in Scripture, an indifferent love or a matter of God's being blind. It is rather a turning from real wrath to real grace." [Berkower, Sin, p.354f]

I'll take a break-coffee time

 

[101G]

from a Christian systematic theology: (Berkhof, Systematic Theology. Eerdmans:1939/41):

[Statement 3] “The possibility of vicarious atonement. All those who advocate a subjective theory of the atonement raise a formidable objection to the idea of vicarious atonement. They consider it unthinkable that a just God should transfer His wrath against moral offenders to a perfectly innocent party, and should treat the innocent judicially as if he were guilty. There is undoubtedly a real difficulty here, especially in view of the fact that this seems to be contrary to all human analogy. We cannot conclude from the possibility of the transfer of a pecuniary debt to that of the transfer of a penal debt. If some beneficent person offers to pay the pecuniary debt of another, the payment must be accepted, and the debtor is ipso facto freed from all obligation. But this is not the case when someone offers to atone vicariously for the transgression of another. To be legal, this must be expressly permitted and authorized by the lawgiver.

This piece will explore this issue…

...................................................................................

As we look at this issue, we will need to keep in mind the distinctions between "what/that" and "how/why".

We will start with the “What/That” (what exactly is 'penal substitution' and what is it not, plus what was it FOR, and 'that' the biblical record teaches it); weaving in the “How” (how does this actually work, and how does it solve the problem it was supposed to solve”), and the “Why” (why was it done this way, rather than some other).

We may not have enough data to get all the way through these questions, but we can at least surface as many of the issues and perspectives as we can. And we can assess the various objections along the way. We will, also, confine our discussion to perps who are seeking forgiveness from God. That is, they are not continuing criminals, persistently perp-ing, or steadfastly self-divinized. Our test case will match the pattern of the individual in the Old Testament/Tanaach who approached Yahweh for the forgiveness of sins.

............................................................

The What.

The basic points of this can be laid out fairly simply:

A moral agent commits a crime of privation/assault/devaluation against God (perhaps through a crime against other moral agents in community, but not necessarily).

Under Reciprocity (philosophy), God --and perhaps others--are obligated to treat the perp under Reciprocity and “pri-vate upon” him, proportionally.

Under Extended Reciprocity (outreach, and not just responsive Reciprocity), the perp owes a debt to all offended parties.

Under God as Legislator/Judge (theology) , God-as-Judge has to apply the law to the perp, necessitating previously-defined punishment.

Under God as Owner, the perp owes to God whatever the perp destroyed/stolen from Him (including his own life, if he had destroyed another's life in the crime).

Essentially, therefore, there are two obligation flows: one from God to the perp, and one from the perp to God. [There are other obligations, of course, between God, the perp, and Moral Others, but we are talking here exclusively about the God-perp relationship. We'll comment on this later below]

These are obligations toward God (commitments, duties, things owed, things deserved, contractually binding tasks, moral imperatives, things-culpable-if-omitted) on the part of the perp.

.......................................
In the area of Law, these are punishments/privations for specific acts done (or left undone), both criminal (as Judge) and civil (as Owner).

In the area of contracts/covenants, these are penalties owed under breach-of-contract, for failure to keep one's commitments (both civil and criminal--as in embezzlement).

In the area of moral reciprocity, there are proportionate responses due from God to the perp, for any action (in this case, for anti-good action).

Continue

one scripture is needed to answer this, Isaiah 63:5.

101G

 

[civic]

Part 1- Author civic from Berean Apologetics Ministry ( BAM )

The Nature of God in the Atonement

1-Introduction- Definition of theology, attributes and nature of God, Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, and PSA (wrath of God arguments).

2-Thesis statement: Scripture does not teach that God’s wrath was poured out on Jesus.

3-Attributes of God : His unchanging nature, His love being the cornerstone.

The main Old Testament Passages where Penal Substitutionary Atonement is Derived: Psalm 22; Isaiah 53

4-New Testament Interpretation of Isaiah 53: Matthew 8:14-17;Mark 15:27-32;John 12:37-41;Luke 22:35-38;Acts 8:26-35;Romans 10:11-21;1 Peter 2:19-2

5- Jesus as the Expiation for Sin in the Atonement

Propitiation
1 John 2:2; 4:10

Expiation—Forgiveness and covering of sin. Use of typology

6- Conclusion

God is Love
This paper is about the Trinity, and the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement (e.g., PSA), as it relates to the nature and character of God. The word Theology refers to the study of God, and God is Triune, a Trinity- Tri-Unity. All doctrine begins with God at its starting point. God’s innate attributes are Aseity (God is self-sufficient), Infinite (without limit), Eternal (God has no beginning or end, he is timeless), Immutable (God is unchanging), Love (God is love), Holy (God is set-apart), Perichoresis (the indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Divine Simplicity states God is Love because He is Love, not because He possesses that quality. God is the center of all the Divine Attributes. They point to His Being. God is not distinct from His nature.

God is Love. In love, the Father sent the Son on our behalf to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. We Love because He first loved us and sent His Son as 1 John 4:19 tells us.

We must understand how God's attributes all work in harmony together, not in opposition to each other. God's attributes and character flow from His love—for God is love.

God being love has nothing to do with His creation. That is secondary. God is love, and that love is perfect, lacking nothing within His Triune nature as God. Love, by definition, has to be expressed with another, which is why a unitarian god cannot be love. Love requires another to share and express that love, and it is what we see with the Triune God. God is love before anyone/anything existed.

Before creation, there was no sin. There was no judgment, wrath, mercy, grace, and justice. Why? Because those are God's secondary attributes concerning the creation and the fall. God's love is a primary attribute, like Holy is a primary one. Everything about God flows from His being Love which includes His secondary attributes, which were not in use until the creation and the fall.

Let’s examine how this works in conjunction with Gods sovereignty and His love. God is sovereign and also love. Both sovereignty and love as they intersect with God have been revealed plainly to us by God in His word. He has done this both through his word and his works. And God has sworn never to change for He is Immutable.

God's sovereignty is never exercised in violation of his love. His love is very everlasting, for God is love. The love of God has not the slightest shadow of variation, and it, not his sovereignty, is the basis upon which his moral standards rest. Any promotion of any doctrine that represents God as acting in a way that violates his love appealing to the fact that He is sovereign is found nowhere in the pages of scripture.

The fact that God can do something is not a justification for Him doing it. The fact that God can damn everyone without a reason is not an argument for justifying teaching that he does as in the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination. All that He can do is restricted by the standard that God values most which is His love. If it will violate love, God will not and cannot do it for that would be contrary to His nature and character as a loving God. And if it will violate love then it is not right. God cannot make it right by doing it just because He is sovereign. If God does it just because He is sovereign then He would not be God but something else.

What makes God, God is so intricately bound to his intent for doing things that if He were to do a thing just by virtue of the fact that He is sovereign and can do it rather than by virtue of the fact that it is loving? He would not be God as we know Him but something else. If sovereignty is what defines what makes up love in such a way that God doing anything is what defines love, then love has no meaning and can be anything and everything it is and opposes any time, which is ridiculous.

This below is from the Calvinist Theologian Abraham Kuyper on God is love:


“Before God created heaven and earth with all their inhabitants, the eternal Love of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit shone with unseen splendor in the divine Being. Love exists, not for the sake of the world, but for God's sake; and when the world came into existence, Love remained unchanged; and if every creature were to disappear, it would remain just as rich and glorious as ever. Love exists and works in the Eternal Being apart from the creature; and its radiation upon the, creature is but a feeble reflection of its being.

Love is not God, but God is Love; and He is sufficient to Himself to love absolutely and forever. He has no need of the creature, and the exercise of His Love did not begin with the creature whom He could love, but it flows and springs eternally in the Love-life of the Triune God. God is Love; its perfection, divine beauty, real dimensions, and holiness are not found in men, not even in the best of God's children, but scintillate only around the Throne of God.

The unity of Love with the Confession of the Trinity is the starting-point from which we proceed to base Love independently in God, absolutely independent of the creature or anything creaturely. This is not to make the divine Trinity a philosophic deduction from essential love. That is unlawful; if God had not revealed this mystery in His Word we should be totally ignorant of it. But since the Scripture puts the Triune Being before us as the Object of our adoration, and upon almost every page most highly exalts the mutual Love of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and delineates it as an Eternal Love, we know and plainly see that this holy Love may never be represented but as springing from the mutual love of the divine Persons.

Hence through the mystery of the Trinity, the Love which is in God and is God obtains its independent existence, apart from the creature, independent of the emotions of mind and heart; and it rises as a sun, with its own fire and rays, outside of man, in God, in whom it rests and from whom it radiates.

In this way we eradicate every comparison of the Love of God with our love. In this way the false mingling ceases. In principle we resist the reversing of positions whereby arrogant man had succeeded in copying from himself a so-called God of Love, and into silencing all adoration. In this way the soul returns to the blessed confession that God is Love, and the way of divine mercy and pity is opened whereby the brightness of that Sun can radiate in a human way, i.e., in a finite and imperfect manner to and in the human heart, to the praise of God. “From his book on the Work of the Holy Spirit Volume 3, Second Chapter Love- xviii Love in the Triune Being of God “

 

[civic]

Part 2 by civic from Berean Apologetics Ministry

God can do anything and everything is what sovereignty means by definition. God will only do what is loving and what is righteousness. Righteousness is the foundation of his throne. In other words, righteousness is the constraint of his sovereign rule. Love is how God rules His creation. Sovereignty, Righteousness, Justice, Mercy and all the other attributes of God fall under the umbrella of His love. God being love is foundational to Gods nature, character, the gospel and the entire purpose for Christs 1st Coming. John 3:16. God rules by His love. The question we need to be asking ourselves is this, how does our Sovereign God display His love in conjunction with His rule over mankind?

Psalm 22

The messianic passage of Psalm 22 was played out before their very eyes, and Jesus quotes the opening verse letting His persecutors know that He truly is the Son of God, the Messiah, by quoting Psalm 22. The passage was being lived out before all witnesses of the crucifixion. It is a proclamation and a declaration that He is the Messiah, God's One and Only Son who gave His life as a ransom for many.

What the Father did allow to happen and not rescue His Son from was His death and suffering from those wicked leaders to be our sacrifice for sin. The entire weight of that was upon Him to bear alone, but the Father never left Him. He was there hearing His prayers and answering them upon His death. Moreover, let us not forget Jesus' promise to the sinner, "Today, you will be with me in paradise Luke 23:4." For God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life. The Trinity was never fractured, broken, or severed for even a moment, but together, the Godhead accomplished salvation for sinners.

It was a Triune effort that worked out to perfection as They had planned from the very beginning. Furthermore, when this reconciliation took place at the cross, we read that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself - 2 Corinthians 5:19. The book of Romans states that "God demonstrated His love for us that while we were still sinners Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). So Jesus' sacrificial atonement both propitiates (turns away God’s wrath) and expiates (covers our sins). Gods’ wrath does not fall on the sacrifice. Scripture teaches us that sin was condemned in the flesh, not that Jesus was condemned (Romans 8:3).



Psalm 22

My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?
Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning.
2 O my God, I cry by day, but You do not answer;
And by night, but I have no rest.
3 Yet You are holy,
O You who are enthroned upon the praises of Israel.
4 In You our fathers trusted;
They trusted and You delivered them.
5 To You they cried out and were delivered;
In You they trusted and were not disappointed.
6 But I am a worm and not a man,
A reproach of men and despised by the people.
7 All who see me sneer at me;
They separate with the lip, they wag the head, saying,
8 “Commit yourself to the Lord; let Him deliver him;
Let Him rescue him, because He delights in him.”
9 Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb;
You made me trust when upon my mother’s breasts.
10 Upon You I was cast from birth;
You have been my God from my mother’s womb.
11 Be not far from me, for trouble is near;
For there is none to help.
12 Many bulls have surrounded me;
Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled me.
13 They open wide their mouth at me,
As a ravening and a roaring lion.
14 I am poured out like water,
And all my bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax;
It is melted within me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
And my tongue cleaves to my jaws;
And You lay me in the dust of death.
16 For dogs have surrounded me;
A band of evildoers has encompassed me;
They pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones.
They look, they stare at me;
18 They divide my garments among them,
And for my clothing they cast lots.
19 But You, O Lord, be not far off;
O You my help, hasten to my assistance.
20 Deliver my soul from the sword,
My only life from the power of the dog.
21 Save me from the lion’s mouth;
From the horns of the wild oxen You answer me.
22 I will tell of Your name to my brethren;
In the midst of the assembly I will praise You.
23 You who fear the Lord, praise Him;
All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him,
And stand in awe of Him, all you of Israel.
24 For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Nor has He hidden His face from him;
But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.
25 From You comes my praise in the great assembly;
I shall pay my vows before those who fear Him.
26 The afflicted will eat and be satisfied;
Those who seek Him will praise the Lord.
Let your heart live forever!
27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord,
And all the families of the nations will worship before You.
28 For the kingdom is the Lord’s
And He rules over the nations.
29 All the prosperous of the earth will eat and worship,
All those who go down to the dust will bow before Him,
Even he who cannot keep his soul alive.
30 Posterity will serve Him;
It will be told of the Lord to the coming generation.
31 They will come and will declare His righteousness
To a people who will be born, that He has performed it.


There are 10 points about God and Jesus' last words that are important to examine. Some people taught when Jesus said (My God My God why have Thou forsaken Me) that the Father departed, deserted, and turned His back upon His Son to bear God’s wrath on the cross. They teach from the pulpits that God is too Holy to look upon sin. However, is this teaching biblical? Is it true?


1-God is Triune- Tri-Unity

2- The Trinity cannot be broken, separated, or abandoned.

3- God does not send His wrath against God

4- Jesus is God

5- Context has meaning, and all the gospel accounts work together along with the O.T. quotations

6-In Luke 23:46, Jesus' last words were," Father into Thy hands I commit my Spirit."

7- Within Psalm 22, there are numerous details regarding Jesus' crucifixion. For example, Psalms 22 and the gospels say He was mocked, despised, hurled insults, cast lots, divided His clothes, let God rescue Him. Further, Psalm 22:24 also says God has not despised Him nor hidden His face from Him and listened to His cry for help.

8- Psalm 22:24 coincides with Jesus' trust and relationship with the Father when he states, "Into your hands, I commit MY Spirit."

9- Psalm 22:1 was Jesus’ cry in response to his enemies' surrounding him like David, not about the Father turning away from him.

10- Psalm 22 and Jesus last words are a declaration, a proclamation that He is the promised Messiah described in great detail in this Psalm.

 

[civic]

Part 3 from civic at Berean Apologetics Ministry

Though often taught from the pulpit and widely accepted within Christianity, there is a common misnomer that God cannot look upon sin.

This misnomer or idea is rooted in a misunderstanding of Habakkuk 1:13, which states, "Your eyes are too pure to look upon evil." To expand upon the meaning of this verse, God cannot look at sin favorably or with complacency. However, this verse does not state that God cannot look at sin or that He cannot allow sin in His presence. God did not turn His back on Adam when he sinned--God sought him out. God did not turn His back on David when he sinned. Jesus sought out Peter after he denied Him 3 times. Judas whom Jesus said one of you is the devil was on of His 12 disciples. In the book of Job, God allowed satan in His presence for a specific purpose. Satan wanted to make a deal with God over His servant, Job. God restricted Satan, telling him that he "can do anything but touch Job" and not to "lay a hand or finger on him." In the wilderness, Jesus allowed the presence of satan (face to face).

Jesus did not turn His back on Saul when he was persecuting the church and sought him out on the Damascus Road and said to him," why are you persecuting Me?" If God did not turn His back on sinners, then neither did the Father turn His back on His only Son who is Holy, Blameless, Sinless, and Righteous just like His Father. The Father turning His back on the Son (at the cross) is not found in Scripture. Jesus ate with sinners, lived among sinners, loves sinners and He suffered and died for sinners.

Wrath- strongs 3709 ὀργή is defined in the Greek lexicon as anger, retribution, vengeance, and indignation. God is not against Himself angrily displaying wrath from the Father to the Son. God is love. In love, He sent His Son. The wrath bearing Son is a new concept not found in Scripture nor the early church fathers (ECFs). God is not against Himself. No one in the Trinity is in opposition, no conflict, no dissension, no strife, no disunity, no dysfunction. As if God were somehow like a sinful human family. There is nothing broken in Our Blessed Trinity.

Jesus bearing God’s wrath and being despised and forsaken by the Father and Him turning His back on the Son is not found in the pages of Scripture. That doctrine was developed in the dark ages during the Reformation and called Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement or (PSA)

Calvin's comments on Galatians 3:13,
"He could not cease to be the object of his Father’s love, and yet he endured his wrath. For how could he reconcile the Father to us, if he had incurred his hatred and displeasure? We conclude, that he “did always those things that pleased” (John 8:29) his Father. Again, how would he have freed us from the wrath of God, if he had not transferred it from us to himself? Thus, “he was wounded for our transgressions,” (Isaiah 53:5,) and had to deal with God as an angry judge."

The following scriptures affirm that Jesus' relationship with the Father on the cross was still there and not broken.

Psalm 22:24
For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.

Luke 23:46
Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

John 16:32
"A time is coming and in fact has come when you will be scattered, each to your own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me."

Hebrews 5:7
During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.

Jesus' promise to the thief on the cross that today you will be with Me in Paradise reaffirms Jesus went to be with the Father and not suffer in hell as some teach.

Jesus bearing God's “cup of wrath” and being despised and forsaken by the Father and Him turning His back on the Son is not found in Scripture.

In Matthew 26:39, Jesus says, "If it be your will, let this cup pass from me." Jesus tells us precisely what the cup was. It was the cup of his suffering, which meant that He would die an agonizing death as a martyr. In the passage below, Jesus told His disciples that they would also drink of the same "cup":

Matthew 20:17-
Now Jesus was going up to Jerusalem. On the way, he took the Twelve aside and said to them, 18 “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death 19 and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!”20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. 21 “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, "Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom."22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered. 23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

1Thessalonians 5:9-For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

As we see above it was not the cup of wrath Jesus was speaking about but it was the suffering He was going to have to endure for our sins. God has not appointed us to wrath and the cup means the suffering of Jesus and that the disciples would also suffer death as martyrs. In fact, many scriptures testify that believers too will suffer persecution for being a follower of Jesus. Suffering persecution is a promise for a believer who follows Jesus, it is something we should expect to happen in our life.

2 Timothy 3:12- Yes, and everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.

John 15:20
Remember the word that I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they kept My word, they will keep yours as well.

Matthew 5:10 - Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

2 Corinthians 4:9- persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed.

 

[civic]

Part 4 by civic at Berean Apologetics Ministry

Wrath from God is not required for the forgiveness of sins, that is a misnomer.

Exodus 34:6
Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in faithfulness and truth;

Isaiah 48:9
For the sake of My name I will delay My wrath; for the sake of My praise I will restrain it, so that you will not be cut off.

Psalm 78:38
And yet He was compassionate; He forgave their iniquity and did not destroy them. He often restrained His anger and did not unleash His full wrath.

Psalm 85:1-3
You, Lord, showed favor to your land;
you restored the fortunes of Jacob.
2 You forgave the iniquity of your people
and covered all their sins.
3 You set aside all your wrath
and turned from your fierce anger.

The wrath of God (Isaiah 53)

Within the study of the doctrine on PSA, the central O.T. passage it comes from is found in Isaiah 53. Let us look at how the N.T. quotes Isaiah 53 and see how the N.T. writers viewed the passages and used them in the N.T. and what language from Isaiah 53 they applied to Jesus in the N.T. regarding suffering.

In doing so, a few things stand out. There is no penal aspect/ language Isaiah used that is carried over in the N.T. but that of substitution. Isaiah 53:4- WE (not God) considered Him punished by God. The following NT passages quote Isaiah 53: Matthew 8:14-17; Mark 15:27-32; John 12:37-41; Luke 22:35-38; Acts 8:26-35; Romans 10:11-21; and 1 Peter 2:19-25. Not one of them uses any penal language where PSA gets its doctrine from in Isaiah 53 in the New Testament.

Atonement- katallagé καταλλαγή -reconciliation, restoration to favor. Strongs 2643.

Thayers: adjustment of a difference, reconciliation, restoration to favor, (from Aeschylus on); in the N. T., of the restoration of the favor of God to sinners that repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ: 2 Corinthians 5:18f; with the genitive of the one received into favor, τοῦ κόσμου (opposed to ἀποβολή), Romans 11:15; καταλλαγήν ἐλάβομεν, we received the blessing of the recovered favor of God, Romans 5:11; with the genitive of him whose favor is recovered, 2 Macc. 5:20. (Cf. Trench, § lxxvii.)

Romans 5:11- And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. KJV

Romans 5:11- And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. NASB

1 Corinthians 5:7 say the following: For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. This means just like the firstborn were spared by the blood on the posts of their doors from God’s wrath so to are we passed over Gods wrath from the blood of Jesus. The blood of Jesus provides forgiveness of sins and God’s wrath like with the Israelites are passed over and it falls upon the wicked, not those covered and protected by the blood of the Lamb. Gods’ wrath as Romans 1 declares is still being poured out upon sin and ungodliness and the bowls of Gods wrath and punishment is still yet to come. So, if Jesus bore Gods’ wrath for sinners, then why is God’s wrath still being poured out now and in the future if in the Atonement Gods wrath was satisfied? The fact is Jesus did not bear God’s wrath on the cross because it still exists and is being poured out in the bowls of Revelation before His 2nd Coming.

Romans 1:18- The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness

Romans 5:9- Therefore, since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from wrath through Him!

Colossians 3:6-Because of these, the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience.

Ephesians 5:6- Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience

Thessalonians 1:10- and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

Propitiation- the turning away of God's anger/wrath

Expiation- the covering for our sins

Through expiation—the work of Christ on the cross for us—the sin of all those who would ever believe in Christ was canceled. That cancellation is eternal in its consequence, even though sin is still present in the temporal sense. In other words, believers are delivered from the penalty and power of sin, but not the presence of it. Justification is the term for being delivered from the penalty of sin. This is a one-time act wherein the sinner is justified and made holy and righteous in the eyes of God, who exchanged our sinful natures for the righteousness of Christ at the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21). Sanctification is the ongoing process whereby believers are delivered from the power of sin in their lives and are enabled by the new nature to resist and turn away from it. Glorification is when we are removed from the very presence of sin, which will only occur once we leave this world and are in heaven. All these processes—justification, sanctification, and glorification—are made possible through the expiation or cancellation of sin. (gotquestions.org)

Propitiation vs. Expiation- The New Testament usage of hilaskomai and hilasmos, consistent with its precedent usage in the Greek Old Testament, speaks consistently of God’s atoning action in Christ directed toward sin on behalf of sinners, not human action directed toward God to satisfy God. The criterion for interpretation, Stott has said, “is whether the object of the atoning action is God or man.” “Propitiation” indicates an action by humans directed toward God, and “expiation” indicates an action by God toward sin and sinners. According to Stott's criterion, these texts favor "expiation" over “propitiation.” Given the choice of translating hilastērion either “propitiation” or “expiation,” therefore, “expiation” is preferable based on the textual evidence of both the New Testament and the Greek Old Testament. James Dunn summarizes well the case for preferring “expiation” to “propitiation” as a translation for hilastērion: Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 247–252.

So, as we see, the Tri-Unity of God is eternal, and the Father / Son relationship remained perfect through the crucifixion of Jesus. Our Triune God perfectly accomplished the atonement and our salvation through Jesus suffering for our sins on the cross, and His Resurrection from the dead gave Him and the church victory over sin, death, the devil, and the world.

 

[civic]

Part 5 by civic from Apologetics Ministry

Purification for sin- καθαρισμός- katharismos: a cleansing, purifying, purification, expiation. Strongs 2512.

Thayers: a cleansing from the guilt of sins (see καθαρίζω, 1 b. β.): wrought now by baptism, 2 Peter 1:9, now by the expiatory sacrifice of Christ, Hebrews 1:3 on which cf. Kurtz, Commentary, p. 70; (Exodus 30:10; τῆς ἁμαρτίας μου, Job 7:21; of an atonement, Lucian, asin. 22)

Hebrews 1:3-And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Purification for sin is in the blood of Christ in the Atonement

Matthew 26:26-29
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Hebrews 9:22
Because all things are purged by blood in The Written Law, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Leviticus 4:20,26,35
And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them

Leviticus 6:7
And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for your souls upon the altar; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.

Hebrews 9
Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand and the table with its consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now. 6 When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

The forgiveness of sins is found only in the blood of Christ- His life which He gave as a sacrifice for sin. That is the heart of the Atonement. It is what the New Covenant is found upon His blood, His life which was given for our sins. Forgiveness is only found in His blood that He gave His life on our behalf. That is how are sins are removed and taken away. That is what the Law required for sin was the blood of the animal sacrifice.

There is no "punishment" above anywhere. There is a sacrifice provided which covers and provides forgiveness of sins. The entire book of Hebrews is built upon the OT Law and how it is fulfilled in Christ.

Jesus said He gave His life as a Ransom . Strongs 3038- Lutron λύτρον. the purchasing money for manumitting slaves, a ransom, the price of ransoming; especially the sacrifice by which expiation is effected, an offering of expiation. Thayers: λύτρον, λύτρου, τό (λύω), the Sept. passim for כֹּפֶר, גְּאֻלָּה, פִּדְיון, etc.; the price for redeeming, ransom (paid for slaves, Leviticus 19:20; for captives, Isaiah 45:13; for the ransom of a life, Exodus 21:30; Numbers 35:31f): ἀντί πολλῶν, to liberate many from the misery and penalty of their sins, Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45. (Pindar, Aeschylus, Xenophon, Plato, others.)

Matthew 20:28- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many

hilastērion – the atonement is received by Faith.

Romans 3:25
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. NIV

Romans 3:25
whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. ESV

The Atonement is received by faith. The offering of the Atonement for sin cannot be obtained apart from faith. The atonement for sin has been made and it cannot be applied to mankind apart from faith. Jesus has made an atonement for sin but it produces no reconciliation, no pardon from sin, no remission of sin unless is accepted or received by faith.

 

[civic]

Part 6 by civic from Berean Apologetics Ministry

The fallacy of the sufficient for all, efficient for some with the Atonement.

We must go back to the gospel and what the scriptures teach about the good news of Jesus death, burial and resurrection as defined in 1 Corinthians 15.

1 Corinthians 15:17- And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

The passage declares if Christ is not risen, raised from the dead, resurrected then our faith is in vain and we are still dead in our sins. We are saved by His life/Resurrection not His death. His death atoned for sin but does not give life.

Romans 4:24-25
but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Paul declares in Romans 5:10 the following: For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Cf Acts 17:31.

John 11:25-26
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

We know that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. Romans 10:17. We know that God saves those who believe – 1 Corinthians 1:21. We know that we receive the spirit and are sealed with the spirit through belief in the gospel- Ephesians 1:13.

Sin is the transgression of the law- 1 John 3:4. Sin is known thorough/by the law- Romans 7:7. The law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ- Galatians 3:24-25. Where there is no law there is no transgression of the law- Romans 4:14. Sin is not counted against anyone when there is no law. Romans 5:13.

In Colossians 2:13-15 we read the following: When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Ephesians 2:14-15: For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

2 Corinthians 5:18-20: All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.

So, we see from the above scriptures it’s not sin per se that keeps the sinner from God it is unbelief. Faith is the issue. In Romans 5:1-2 we read the following: Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God

Its unbelief that keeps one from salvation and places them under condemnation. This is taught throughout the N.T. gospels and epistles. Here we see what Jesus and Paul declared below.

John 3:18: Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

John 3:36: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them

Romans 11:20: Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith.

Hebrews 3:19: So, we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief. Cf Heb 4:6- unbelief

Who was responsible for putting Jesus to death, was it God or man?

Acts 2:23
This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross

Acts 4:10,11
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole…

Acts 5:30
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

Acts 7:52
Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him

Acts 13:27
For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him

1 Corinthians 2:8-
None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory

 

[civic]

Part 7 by civic from Berean Apologetics Ministry

Conclusion

As we have seen reading through these O.T. passages quoted in the N.T., we discover that the N.T. does not use the penal language that was developed during the Reformation in the dark ages as that was how that culture during that time had dealt with people in their judicial system punishing those who disagreed with them, torture and death were a result for many who went against their theology. That was the mentality of those who developed the doctrine we have today called the PSA atonement. There are many aspects and theories of the atonement that contain truth, and no one theory is 100% correct. There are many different views and aspects to the atonement within orthodoxy. The N.T. writers' emphasis on the atonement is on the side of expiation rather than propitiation, which is only used twice in the epistle of 1 John. Gods’ wrath is still future and will judge those who reject His Sons atonement for sin. Gods’ wrath was not poured out on the Son for sin otherwise there would be no future wrath from God because of sin.

Jesus said: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The reason my Father loves Me is that I lay down My life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord” (John 10:11; 17-18). Or again, while speaking to the multitudes, Jesus declared: “Whatever the Father does the Son also does” (John 5:19). And Jesus said: “Now my heart is troubled. ‘Father, save me from this hour?’ No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!” (John 12:27-28) The clear picture that emerges from Scripture is that Jesus was not the unfortunate victim of the angry Father. Rather, the Father and the Son were working in concert through the cross to pay for the sins of humanity and make atonement. There is no division of will between the Father and the Son.The viewpoint in this paper brings out the fact that Jesus’ atonement was done in love which provided covering and forgiveness of sins. And this view harmonizes with God’s wrath that is still yet to come and was not poured out on Jesus on the cross. Our loving God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). Our loving Father took pleasure to bruise His Son to reconcile us to God as an offering for our sins. (Isaiah 53:10).

It is by faith in the Son through the message of the gospel that saves and unbelief which condemns. The gospel is for all mankind, all the world, for everyone. God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4). God is the Savior of all men, especially of believers (1 Timothy. 4:10), For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to everyone (Titus 2:11) For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all (Romans 11:32). The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). God sent His Son into the world to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29) and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2). and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again (2 Corinthians 5:15). But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9)

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

@Johann see my previous 7 posts as a rebuttal to the heresy of PSA.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Johann]

@Johann see my previous 7 posts as a rebuttal to the heresy of PSA.

hope this helps !!!

Thanks-I am a die hard PSA believer brother.

A SUMMARY OF THE NATURE OF CHRIST’S DEATH AND RESURRECTION
While Christ’s death is a model of sacrificial service to God and love for people (cf. Phil 2:6-11), this is not the primary explanation of it in the New Testament. The primary explanation and summary of the multifaceted cross-work of Christ is to refer to it as vicarious atonement or penal substitution. This means that Christ’s sacrifice paid the full penalty of our sin by dying in our place. The penalty for sin is death and Christ completely paid that penalty on the cross.

 

[civic]

Thanks-I am a die hard PSA believer brother.

A SUMMARY OF THE NATURE OF CHRIST’S DEATH AND RESURRECTION
While Christ’s death is a model of sacrificial service to God and love for people (cf. Phil 2:6-11), this is not the primary explanation of it in the New Testament. The primary explanation and summary of the multifaceted cross-work of Christ is to refer to it as vicarious atonement or penal substitution. This means that Christ’s sacrifice paid the full penalty of our sin by dying in our place. The penalty for sin is death and Christ completely paid that penalty on the cross.

Show me where Jesus taught PSA- He is the Savior, the One who made the Atonement for sin who is God.

He never taught anything penal regarding His sacrifice for sin. He never even hinted at it.

Sola Christus.

 

[Johann]

Let me use a fictional, semi-parable, storyline to draw out the elements involved:

The Representative of the Divine Law (Jesus) hears my confession 'at the station', in the "Intake" room, takes down the details--commenting about how serious a crime it is and how severe the legitimate punishment for it is, and then moves me to a "meeting room". The room is fairly plain, with an large table and several chairs around it, a coffee machine and water cooler in the corner, a big picture window (but not one-way mirror thing I was sorta expecting, from the movie stereotypes), and an unusual, but stunningly vivid, colorful, beautiful, full-length Abstract Art Mural along one wall--complete with a set of oil paints, brushes, on a little table. Jesus leaves the meeting room, and talks with the Divine Judge out in the hall. When they both return to the room, the following dialogue begins:

Judge:

"I've talked your crime over with Jesus, and we've decided not to charge you with this crime, and therefore, not to put it on your record at all. That means, of course, that you will not be indicted, sentenced, or punished in any way. However, you DO have to go back down to the Human court system and go through THEIR procedures. Down there, you will likely have to bear many consequences for your crime, but I can assure you that none of them are as severe or exacting as what you would have to endure in the Divine sphere of Law. You will also have to go out of your way to apologize and make it up to the victims (beyond the human court system), live such a life that contributes more-good-than-bad, and tell others about how you sought/found mercy in the Divine Court. And, you should manifest the same gentleness and forgiving spirit to your fellows, which you have seen here already from Jesus. Also, FYI, we have a Divine Victim Assistance team, which will be taking steps to help the victims, in our special ways too. But you are legally free to go."

Glenn (after receiving CPR from Jesus) gets up and responds:

"But I totally deserve that horrible punishment--don't you up HERE legally HAVE TO punish me for that crime????"

Jesus:

"Actually, we WOULD have to punish you for that crime, but ONLY IF you were convicted of that crime. And, since we are not even CHARGING you with that crime, you obviously cannot be convicted, and therefore not legally punished. The law of crime-gets-punished up here is inviolate, but in your case, it's irrelevant because your act will not even be recorded on your legal ledger."

Glenn (still a little numb from all this):

"Thanks, Thanks, Thanks--and I will do WHATEVER YOU SAY, because of this amazing relief. But I don't understand this at all--You Folks up here are KNOWN for your omniscience, your fidelity to law, and your absolute truthfulness. How in the world (or in heaven) can you 'ignore' the divine justice implications of my crime??? I know I personally will never forget my wrong-doing. Of course, I can clearly see that you are not ignoring the HUMAN implications, because you are requiring me to submit to human law on this, but how can you honestly, morally, and legally keep this act off my personal record? It obviously occurred, and can't be swept under the rug (or under the cloud, I guess).?"

Jesus turns to the Judge and asks:

"You want to tell him, or shall I?"

The Judge steals the briefest of glances at Jesus' hands on the table, and responds:

"I'll tell him--especially since I am setting some situations up for him in his future, in which he will have to manifest the same kind of heart..."

Judge (to an attentive, but puzzled little Glenn):

"You see, it's like this. Jesus and I don't really like this legal job--we only do it on an 'as-needed basis'. We actually call this judgment stuff "our strange work". We're actually artists. We sculpt, paint, make music, create flowers and worlds and laughter, etch beauty into things which replicate this beauty elsewhere, create dances in hearts, and neat stuff like that (Glenn notices that Their faces are literally beaming with joy at this point). But all these works of delightful art have structure, form, interconnections, and harmony. And this means that there was order involved, required, honored, and unfortunately, vulnerable to harm. (Their faces sadden.)

"Some of our living dances decided to 'break things', and some of our greatest breathing sculptures decided to start un-making our thinking flowers. And we had to go into the "Law and Order" business to deal with these atrocities. Hence this court, these proceedings, and this ledger/justice system. But, remember, it is only because we love our creatures with a fierce and protective love--we simply love too much to sit by and watch anti-love sprout, grow, distort, destroy, and create fear...

"But we really hate this stuff--and so we decided a long time ago on a plan whereby we could take people like you and re-direct them into becoming beauty-makers instead of beauty-breakers. Due to some of the effects of our more public artistic works, we sometimes get people like you through here. People who are wrong-doers, but who KNOW and BEMOAN the fact that they are wrong-doers--and at varying levels of atrocity and destruction.

"Of course, some that come through here simply shake their fists at us in anger, hatred-of-artists, and other irrationalities...! And so, We treat them impartially--just as We would want to be/should be treated in a similar legal situation, receiving the exactly fair amount/type of punishment. But some arrive here already broken-hearted, already empathetic toward their victims, already hopeless and crushed by guilt and despair. They are aware they have no defense against legitimate judgment, no past goodness that can possibly 'counter-balance' their crime, and can only plead for undeserved mercy, and with promises (actually, hopes) of eternal change in their character toward re-innocence.

"For these later cases, we would LOVE to simply 'ignore the crime', change their lives with 'aggressive forgiveness', and send them back out to help us with our Artists' work! But, alas, as you have pointed out, we cannot 'ignore a crime' without damaging the same order/beauty/transparency we defend here. And so, 'cheap forgiveness' (in this case, 'turning a blind eye to evil'--something we REALLY hate down there!) was not an option.

(At this point, the Judge stops for minute, closes He eyes for a second, and takes a deep, slow breath, as if He is trying to control His voice or something. Jesus, on the other hand, is looking straight at little Glenn--not sternly, not intensely, not uncomfortably, but perhaps 'patiently' is the right word? and maybe with a hint of sadness in His gentle and understated smile. Glenn gets really still and quiet at this point, sensing/suspecting that something very life-changing and very awesome is about to be revealed.)



The Judge continues:

"It was clear that what we needed was an 'extra ledger'--without any crime of its own--to which we could somehow assign the crimes of people like you. We needed to find Some Other Willing Person with a perfectly clear ledger that would let Us use their untainted ledger to get you off the hook. Or perhaps more precisely, to keep you from getting ON the hook."


Glenn blurts out at this point:

"But wouldn't that mean that this individual would then have to suffer the punishment for all those crimes--because of your justice/order rules??!

Jesus speaks up here and says:

"Absolutely. And I think you see what the real constraint is. We cannot punish the innocent--we can only visit punishment upon the guilty. In order to visit, for example, the punishment you would have gotten had we imputed your crime to you, upon somebody else, that 'somebody else' has to be legally guilty of 'your crime' first. Once the guilt is somehow assigned to that person, then the rest of the system is perfectly legal, moral, and intelligible. We are at that point punishing the guilty (not the innocent), and you are free to go be a grace-maker."


Glenn, something dawning on him, asks:

"So I take it that--since I am at this very minute, according to what you said a minute ago about me not being charged, the beneficiary of such a plan-- You obviously (1) found a way to transfer legal guilt legally; and (2) you found someone to take all the punishment, and therefore satisfy your legal processes to closure; and (3) this has already been done in the past (at least in my past)...and that I am forever and ever and ever--and 'infinitely deeply'--in somebody's debt...

The Judge says:

"'Yes' on #2 and #3, but 'No' on #1"

Glenn (barely restraining himself from blurting something out about that scene in Buckaroo Banzai...) says:

"What do you mean 'No' on #1--I thought it had to work that way?"

The Judge says:

"Just a technicality--you used the word 'transfer' and that's not exactly what happens. It's not that your guilt was already imputed to you (i.e., on your record) and we un-imputed it from your ledger and "re-imputed it" to someone else's. I suppose, you could, sort of, think of it in that 'transfer' mode, if you want to--we have used 'blot out transgressions' before to refer to it, but that was before the ink was really, really dry (he turns to Jesus and smiles)... Because if it had already been on YOUR ledger, and you had already arrived here, you would have already been in the punishment phase...Rather, the crime never was imputed to you--it was only imputed once, and that once was to this Other Willing Person's ledger."

Jesus adds:

"And you can see what happens when we get those 'I am my own Law' angry, arrogant, art-hater types through here--they could care less about our Plan, and they don't want any part of our solution, so they simply get their crimes imputed to their own ledger (when they are convicted), and the punishment system kicks in."

Glenn, squeezing his eyes shut in an obvious attempt to climb above his standard Pooh-level thinking ("I haven't thought of anything yet, have you?") tries to put this together:

"Okay, let me get this straight. First, You obviously are perfectly legal in punishing the Plan-rejecters for their crimes, right?

[Jesus and the Judge both nod in assent.]
"Secondly, I can only assume that You could NOT do this legally if the Other Willing Person wouldn't agree to your Plan, right? In other words, You couldn't legally force an innocent, empty-ledgered, hugely-generous, incredibly moral Person to suddenly 'become guilty', right?
[Jesus and Judge both nod vigorously.]
"Third, you obviously are perfectly legal in punishing this Other Willing Person, but only because they are technically and "ledger-ly" guilty, right?
[Jesus and the Judge both nod in assent again, obviously pleased at Glenn's progress.]
"Well, that leaves me with two very puzzling questions: one legal and one medi-fiscal...
(The Judge winces, as Glenn struggles to remember his philosophy terminology, and obviously 'misses the mark'...sigh).
"The legal one is the most puzzling--let's start with that: How could you legally assign my un-assigned crime to this Other Person--whether this Other Willing Person was part of, excited about, or joyously committed to the fortunate-for-Glenn plan or not? Isn't that, like, dishonest or something? Sorta like saying "Joe has righteously and heroically agreed to lie that he did the crime we know Glenn actually did"?

The Judge turns to Jesus and whispers:

"A little slow, but at least he's starting to ask moral questions for a change--"
[Jesus nods in agreement]


The Judge begins to explain:

"We sincerely commend your concern about honesty, Glenn,
-----(the Judge and Jesus wink at one another with a quick smile)-----
and We are quite impressed with your obvious lack of fear at suggesting We might be unethical or untruthful for the first time in our Eternal Existence
-----(they both barely suppress a chuckle at this)-----
--and especially so in our venture to make others more ethical and truthful through this Plan-- didn't you philosophy types call that 'Traves-try' or 'Cashew-histry"? or was it "Casuistry"?
-----(They barely restrain their guffaws, as Glenn begins to suspect that They are poking fun at him...)-----

"But the Plan ended up being very simple...but very costly

 

[Johann]

Let me use a fictional, semi-parable, storyline to draw out the elements involved:

The Representative of the Divine Law (Jesus) hears my confession 'at the station', in the "Intake" room, takes down the details--commenting about how serious a crime it is and how severe the legitimate punishment for it is, and then moves me to a "meeting room". The room is fairly plain, with an large table and several chairs around it, a coffee machine and water cooler in the corner, a big picture window (but not one-way mirror thing I was sorta expecting, from the movie stereotypes), and an unusual, but stunningly vivid, colorful, beautiful, full-length Abstract Art Mural along one wall--complete with a set of oil paints, brushes, on a little table. Jesus leaves the meeting room, and talks with the Divine Judge out in the hall. When they both return to the room, the following dialogue begins:

Judge:

"I've talked your crime over with Jesus, and we've decided not to charge you with this crime, and therefore, not to put it on your record at all. That means, of course, that you will not be indicted, sentenced, or punished in any way. However, you DO have to go back down to the Human court system and go through THEIR procedures. Down there, you will likely have to bear many consequences for your crime, but I can assure you that none of them are as severe or exacting as what you would have to endure in the Divine sphere of Law. You will also have to go out of your way to apologize and make it up to the victims (beyond the human court system), live such a life that contributes more-good-than-bad, and tell others about how you sought/found mercy in the Divine Court. And, you should manifest the same gentleness and forgiving spirit to your fellows, which you have seen here already from Jesus. Also, FYI, we have a Divine Victim Assistance team, which will be taking steps to help the victims, in our special ways too. But you are legally free to go."

Glenn (after receiving CPR from Jesus) gets up and responds:

"But I totally deserve that horrible punishment--don't you up HERE legally HAVE TO punish me for that crime????"

Jesus:

"Actually, we WOULD have to punish you for that crime, but ONLY IF you were convicted of that crime. And, since we are not even CHARGING you with that crime, you obviously cannot be convicted, and therefore not legally punished. The law of crime-gets-punished up here is inviolate, but in your case, it's irrelevant because your act will not even be recorded on your legal ledger."

Glenn (still a little numb from all this):

"Thanks, Thanks, Thanks--and I will do WHATEVER YOU SAY, because of this amazing relief. But I don't understand this at all--You Folks up here are KNOWN for your omniscience, your fidelity to law, and your absolute truthfulness. How in the world (or in heaven) can you 'ignore' the divine justice implications of my crime??? I know I personally will never forget my wrong-doing. Of course, I can clearly see that you are not ignoring the HUMAN implications, because you are requiring me to submit to human law on this, but how can you honestly, morally, and legally keep this act off my personal record? It obviously occurred, and can't be swept under the rug (or under the cloud, I guess).?"

Jesus turns to the Judge and asks:

"You want to tell him, or shall I?"

The Judge steals the briefest of glances at Jesus' hands on the table, and responds:

"I'll tell him--especially since I am setting some situations up for him in his future, in which he will have to manifest the same kind of heart..."

Judge (to an attentive, but puzzled little Glenn):

"You see, it's like this. Jesus and I don't really like this legal job--we only do it on an 'as-needed basis'. We actually call this judgment stuff "our strange work". We're actually artists. We sculpt, paint, make music, create flowers and worlds and laughter, etch beauty into things which replicate this beauty elsewhere, create dances in hearts, and neat stuff like that (Glenn notices that Their faces are literally beaming with joy at this point). But all these works of delightful art have structure, form, interconnections, and harmony. And this means that there was order involved, required, honored, and unfortunately, vulnerable to harm. (Their faces sadden.)

"Some of our living dances decided to 'break things', and some of our greatest breathing sculptures decided to start un-making our thinking flowers. And we had to go into the "Law and Order" business to deal with these atrocities. Hence this court, these proceedings, and this ledger/justice system. But, remember, it is only because we love our creatures with a fierce and protective love--we simply love too much to sit by and watch anti-love sprout, grow, distort, destroy, and create fear...

"But we really hate this stuff--and so we decided a long time ago on a plan whereby we could take people like you and re-direct them into becoming beauty-makers instead of beauty-breakers. Due to some of the effects of our more public artistic works, we sometimes get people like you through here. People who are wrong-doers, but who KNOW and BEMOAN the fact that they are wrong-doers--and at varying levels of atrocity and destruction.

"Of course, some that come through here simply shake their fists at us in anger, hatred-of-artists, and other irrationalities...! And so, We treat them impartially--just as We would want to be/should be treated in a similar legal situation, receiving the exactly fair amount/type of punishment. But some arrive here already broken-hearted, already empathetic toward their victims, already hopeless and crushed by guilt and despair. They are aware they have no defense against legitimate judgment, no past goodness that can possibly 'counter-balance' their crime, and can only plead for undeserved mercy, and with promises (actually, hopes) of eternal change in their character toward re-innocence.

"For these later cases, we would LOVE to simply 'ignore the crime', change their lives with 'aggressive forgiveness', and send them back out to help us with our Artists' work! But, alas, as you have pointed out, we cannot 'ignore a crime' without damaging the same order/beauty/transparency we defend here. And so, 'cheap forgiveness' (in this case, 'turning a blind eye to evil'--something we REALLY hate down there!) was not an option.

(At this point, the Judge stops for minute, closes He eyes for a second, and takes a deep, slow breath, as if He is trying to control His voice or something. Jesus, on the other hand, is looking straight at little Glenn--not sternly, not intensely, not uncomfortably, but perhaps 'patiently' is the right word? and maybe with a hint of sadness in His gentle and understated smile. Glenn gets really still and quiet at this point, sensing/suspecting that something very life-changing and very awesome is about to be revealed.)



The Judge continues:

"It was clear that what we needed was an 'extra ledger'--without any crime of its own--to which we could somehow assign the crimes of people like you. We needed to find Some Other Willing Person with a perfectly clear ledger that would let Us use their untainted ledger to get you off the hook. Or perhaps more precisely, to keep you from getting ON the hook."


Glenn blurts out at this point:

"But wouldn't that mean that this individual would then have to suffer the punishment for all those crimes--because of your justice/order rules??!

Jesus speaks up here and says:

"Absolutely. And I think you see what the real constraint is. We cannot punish the innocent--we can only visit punishment upon the guilty. In order to visit, for example, the punishment you would have gotten had we imputed your crime to you, upon somebody else, that 'somebody else' has to be legally guilty of 'your crime' first. Once the guilt is somehow assigned to that person, then the rest of the system is perfectly legal, moral, and intelligible. We are at that point punishing the guilty (not the innocent), and you are free to go be a grace-maker."


Glenn, something dawning on him, asks:

"So I take it that--since I am at this very minute, according to what you said a minute ago about me not being charged, the beneficiary of such a plan-- You obviously (1) found a way to transfer legal guilt legally; and (2) you found someone to take all the punishment, and therefore satisfy your legal processes to closure; and (3) this has already been done in the past (at least in my past)...and that I am forever and ever and ever--and 'infinitely deeply'--in somebody's debt...

The Judge says:

"'Yes' on #2 and #3, but 'No' on #1"

Glenn (barely restraining himself from blurting something out about that scene in Buckaroo Banzai...) says:

"What do you mean 'No' on #1--I thought it had to work that way?"

The Judge says:

"Just a technicality--you used the word 'transfer' and that's not exactly what happens. It's not that your guilt was already imputed to you (i.e., on your record) and we un-imputed it from your ledger and "re-imputed it" to someone else's. I suppose, you could, sort of, think of it in that 'transfer' mode, if you want to--we have used 'blot out transgressions' before to refer to it, but that was before the ink was really, really dry (he turns to Jesus and smiles)... Because if it had already been on YOUR ledger, and you had already arrived here, you would have already been in the punishment phase...Rather, the crime never was imputed to you--it was only imputed once, and that once was to this Other Willing Person's ledger."

Jesus adds:

"And you can see what happens when we get those 'I am my own Law' angry, arrogant, art-hater types through here--they could care less about our Plan, and they don't want any part of our solution, so they simply get their crimes imputed to their own ledger (when they are convicted), and the punishment system kicks in."

Glenn, squeezing his eyes shut in an obvious attempt to climb above his standard Pooh-level thinking ("I haven't thought of anything yet, have you?") tries to put this together:

"Okay, let me get this straight. First, You obviously are perfectly legal in punishing the Plan-rejecters for their crimes, right?

[Jesus and the Judge both nod in assent.]
"Secondly, I can only assume that You could NOT do this legally if the Other Willing Person wouldn't agree to your Plan, right? In other words, You couldn't legally force an innocent, empty-ledgered, hugely-generous, incredibly moral Person to suddenly 'become guilty', right?
[Jesus and Judge both nod vigorously.]
"Third, you obviously are perfectly legal in punishing this Other Willing Person, but only because they are technically and "ledger-ly" guilty, right?
[Jesus and the Judge both nod in assent again, obviously pleased at Glenn's progress.]
"Well, that leaves me with two very puzzling questions: one legal and one medi-fiscal...
(The Judge winces, as Glenn struggles to remember his philosophy terminology, and obviously 'misses the mark'...sigh).
"The legal one is the most puzzling--let's start with that: How could you legally assign my un-assigned crime to this Other Person--whether this Other Willing Person was part of, excited about, or joyously committed to the fortunate-for-Glenn plan or not? Isn't that, like, dishonest or something? Sorta like saying "Joe has righteously and heroically agreed to lie that he did the crime we know Glenn actually did"?

The Judge turns to Jesus and whispers:

"A little slow, but at least he's starting to ask moral questions for a change--"
[Jesus nods in agreement]


The Judge begins to explain:

"We sincerely commend your concern about honesty, Glenn,
-----(the Judge and Jesus wink at one another with a quick smile)-----
and We are quite impressed with your obvious lack of fear at suggesting We might be unethical or untruthful for the first time in our Eternal Existence
-----(they both barely suppress a chuckle at this)-----
--and especially so in our venture to make others more ethical and truthful through this Plan-- didn't you philosophy types call that 'Traves-try' or 'Cashew-histry"? or was it "Casuistry"?
-----(They barely restrain their guffaws, as Glenn begins to suspect that They are poking fun at him...)-----

"But the Plan ended up being very simple...but very costly

Continue--

(They immediately sober at this remark, and continue in more serious and grave tones)...
"There were three legal constructs we wove together to make this a morally beautiful work.

"First, the Original Art Designs for history involved/involves a Final Judgment day, in which all unrequited evil will be punished, and this Final Day is directed to the entire world (actually universe, but let's just focus on your patch for this discussion--it will be easier for you to understand). Our residual wrath will be poured out--not on individuals (that's a different judgment), but upon the world-as-a-whole. We are judging the world-system, and everybody in it at the time--innocent individually or not--will suffer some consequences of this judgment. Are you familiar with the Bowls of Revelation, Glenn?


Glenn: "No, is that some kind of cosmetic line?


The Judge pauses for just a second in disbelief, takes a deep breath, then continues:

"No, it's a pre-announcement of plagues and disasters that will come upon the world at the End of Time. These various judgments are expressions of Our judicial wrath, and they fall upon the whole world. They do NOT discriminate between the good and the bad (just like how We made our sun to shine on the good and the bad, in better times), and so punishment falls upon some innocent souls in this process. They are part--but not contributors to--of the target of our wrath. Guilt for sin is aggregated in that outpouring, and not 'assigned' individually. Rather, wrath-as-a-whole would be poured out upon the world-as-a-whole, for guilt-as-a-whole [which would normally include your 'would-be contribution']. But when that is done, a special (and majority) part of our wrath is finished (Rev 15.1). Whoever suffers during that time, suffers (partly) for your would-be sin, without taking individual responsibility for your would-be sin, understand? [Glenn nods slowly, and really means it.]

"So, the first part of our plan was to schedule an early and 'private' version of this. [We have a lot of flexibility with time, btw]. We scheduled a Final Judgment day a couple of millennia before you were born, and made sure it was LONG BEFORE we do a lot of the 'final crime imputations'. In other words, there was a lot of unassigned guilt and a lot of humans who didn't even show up in the legal records yet (as offenders--though they would be when they reached the Public Final Judgment Day).

"Now, this Other Willing Person became a full-fledged member of the world at that time, and so we scheduled this event around His schedule. On a very specific day, We had our Private Judgment Day, and We poured our wrath-as-a-whole, on the world-as-a-whole, for sin-as-a-whole. But the thing special about this was that we allowed only the Other Willing Person into that middle-of-time 'Judgment Day Event'--everything else stayed on schedule. In other words, this Other Person had requested (as part of the Plan) that He go ahead and face the End Times early. And this we did. We did a Full, End-time Final Judgment on this One Willing Person (at His request), pouring our wrath-in-aggregate upon Him (as the only person there from the world-as-a-whole). He was therefore, in this specific judgment event, 'the whole world'! The end result was that we had 'emptied out' a VAST amount of residual, aggregate wrath, upon an aggregate "sin-as-a-whole". This created the flexibility to recognize, 'as needed', YOUR sin as part of that 'sin-as-a-whole', and therefore as something already 'punished', without having to make any spurious 'assignments' to specific individuals.

"This Other Person had a rough time of this experience--and I suspect you will grow in sober appreciation for this over the years ahead--but because of the beauty of His heart to do this for others, He was honored almost immediately thereafter.

[Tanknote: See my comments about the Isaiah53 Servant's suffering as 'all Israel' above, and note N.T. Wright's observation: "The significance of Jesus' resurrection, for Saul of Tarsus as he lay blinded and perhaps bruised on the road to Damascus, was this. The one true God had done for Jesus of Nazareth, in the middle of time, what Saul had thought He was going to do for Israel at the end of time. Saul had imagined that YHWH would vindicate Israel after her suffering at the hand of the pagans. Instead, he had vindicated Jesus after his suffering at the hands of the pagans. Saul had imagined that the great reversal, the great apocalyptic event, would take place all at once, inaugurating the kingdom of God with a flourish of trumpets, setting all wrongs to right, defeating evil once and for all, and ushering in the age to come. Instead, the great reversal, the great resurrection, had happened to one man, all by himself. What could this mean?...But if Jesus really was the Messiah, and if his death and resurrection really were the decisive heaven-sent defeat of sin and vindication of the people of YHWH, then this means that the Age to Come had already begun, had already been inaugurated, even though the Present Age, the time of sin, rebellion and wickedness, was still proceeding apace...The death and resurrection of Jesus were themselves the great eschatological event, revealing God's covenant faithfulness, his way of putting the world to rights...Saul was already living in the time of the end, even though the previous dimension of time was still carrying on all around him. The Present Age and the Age to Come overlapped, and he was caught in the middle, or rather, liberated in the middle..." [NT:WSPRS, 36f]

Glenn looks 'partially puzzled', and asks:

"I guess You were making some kind of penal 'slush fund' or 'pre-paid punishment card' this way? to apply to my later crime, when it was needed?"

The Judge, winces a bit again, and slowly shakes His head:

"No, no...not quite...we couldn't invent some imaginary sins for the Other One to be punished for (to create this 'slush' fund thing)--we had to use 'real sins' to stay morally truthful and just. We simply took advantage of the horrible fact that, in the complex metaphysics of Our reality, all sins are actually the same sin, at the core. There really is only one base-level sin: when someone, in an act of will, "destroys God, good, and the good effects that have flowed from those" by "creating" themselves as the only "god, good, and effects which will flow from that". This is the essence of sin (a sort of angry, self-obsessed repudiation of reality, oddly enough), and this generic component is present in every individual instance of evil.

"Now, without getting too "META-PHYSICAL" here
-----(He looks over at little Glenn to see if he caught the subtle pedagogy in that terminology)-----
there's a another 'reality' just 'below, beyond, or above' the one you live it. In that reality (where We live), all the individual acts of evil in your human reality are connected, as are all the acts of goodness and artistry. You might could visualize it like the spokes on a bicycle wheel. The spokes all connect at the tire at different and individual points, but they converge onto only one point at the center of the wheel. Hmmm...maybe a circle and radii would have been a better example--how well did you do at geometry, Glenn?



Glenn:

"Well enough to get your point, I think--the individual radii all shared the exact same endpoint in the center of the circle. They all had exactly and numerically the same starting point, but every other point--on the way out to the edge of the circle was different from its counterparts in other spokes, right?

The Judge beams with pleasure, and smiles (with obvious relief):

"Perfectly! Good thinking!

"So, in Our case, all individual acts of human goodness have a common/shared endpoint (in Our reality), but are manifested as separate acts in yours...and the same thing obtains with sin/evil.

"Your early philosophers, especially Plato and Aristotle argued about this all the time--Forms, Ideas, kinds, individuals, genus, accidents, essences, species, etc.--but they were all basically 'correct in what they affirmed, but wrong in what they denied'. They were both right, but couldn't put the two together--due simply to the complexity of the interactions between Our reality and your derivative reality. And there was no way WE could explain it to them, since we BUILT the relationships/realities in such a way. It was a beautiful artistic design, but like so many great works of art, you cannot 'describe' all of it in words and language. But sometimes music seems to convey the relationship between the heavenly and the derivative quite well, don't you think?" (turning to Jesus, who smiles enthusiastically).


Continue--