What
is wrong with the Substitutionary theory of the Atonement
If Christ died for me then he must be my
substitute, right? A law of God was broken, so someone had to pay the penalty
for breaking that law, right? Isn't God a God of Justice so He can't just forgive
someone He has to play by the rules, right? When it comes right down to it, the
law says someone had to die, so it was pretty nice that Jesus Christ died and
paid my debt to God. These are just some of the answers or maybe the questions
that the typical Christian thinks of when he ponders the idea of the
substitution of Christ for us, in theological terms it is called the
Substitutionary theory. Christians did not simply arrive at this theory over
night, it took about 14 centuries to arrive upon the scene. It was a major
outgrowth from Anselm's Satisfaction theory of the atonement. But when it
arrived it took off like no other previous theories of the atonement ever did.
(See Appendix 1) Accepted by the Roman Catholic and the Protestant
alike, yet there are some who, as in the past do not accept the substitutionary
theory as accurate.
What does the Substitutionary theory of the
atonement say to us about God? To those who object to this theory, the problem
is the implications that are drawn about God. These can be drawn into at least
3 broad categories.
1. Love
2. Justice
3. Law
Most people when looking at those three
categories would see a close relationship between Law and Justice, while Love
would be looked at as being on the opposite end of the spectrum. This is not at
all surprising as in the western culture we live in, Justice is viewed in a
penal setting, that is, to most people Justice is most related to punishment.
Justice in a more Eastern or ancient tradition is more related to a restoration
of harmony than to one of punishment. In the Greek language of the New
Testament the same word is used for our English words of Justice and righteous,
therefore in simple language righteousness is right doing and justice is also
right doing.
So we can begin by acknowledging that God is
righteous, certainly from the time of ancient
Have
nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person
to death, for I will not acquit the guilty. (Exodus 23:7)
The Old Testament is replete with warnings
not to shed the blood of the innocent, it is to this day one of the key
principles of right doing. Yet in the substitutionary theory God is required to
break one of His oldest principles of right doing. In this respect the
substitutionary theory has much in common with the satisfaction theory. The
idea in the Satisfaction theory is that man has so greatly insulted God by sin
that only someone as infinite as God can provide satisfaction. The reformers
who held to the penal theory of atonement AKA the Substitutionary Theory often
spoke of Christ as suffering our punishment or appeasing the wrath of God in
our place. To this day Christians will often say that Christ "paid the
penalty" or "paid our debt". With the obvious, though often
ignored implication that the penalty or debt is paid to someone and that
someone must be to God. While certainly not as frequently mentioned as during
the days following the reformation the idea of appeasement of God is just as
certainly present today. Typified by the word propitiation in the King James
Bible or as the author of the Living Bible Paraphrase puts it:
For
God sent Christ Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to end all God's
anger against us. He used Christ's blood and our faith as the means of saving
us from his wrath. In this way he was being entirely fair, even though he did
not punish those who sinned in former times. For he was looking forward to the
time when Christ would come and take away those sins. (Rom
Compared with an
actual translation:
God presented him as a sacrifice of
atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice,
because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand
unpunished--(Rom
Even in Contemporary Christians songs we see
the idea. Most people have either sang the song or at least heard it, some of
the lyrics go like this:
You
came from heaven to earth to show the way From the earth to the cross, my debt
to pay (Lord, I lift your name on High words and music by Rick Founds)
History tells us that the Socinians
could not accept the substitutionary theory because it replaced the concept of
forgiveness with that of debt payment. To them if a debt had to be paid then
God was not really forgiving anything. The corollary which is just as repugnant
is the idea that because the debt was paid then God could forgive people. As if
God could not forgive until appeased or persuaded to forgive mankind. To them
God was perfectly capable of freely forgiving sins without requiring some debt
to be paid or some appeasement of God.
It is little wonder with all the many texts
in the Bible which deal with God's forgiveness, how He blots out our sins and
how He remembers them no more that they would arrive at such a conclusion.
However today while the Christian community frequently speaks of God's
forgiveness. It is equally insistent upon the concept of Penalty and debt. To
most Christians, God forgives but it is because Christ paid the penalty. Yet in
most Trinitarian circles they will acknowledge that Christ is indeed God, so
that in a real sense God paid the penalty. Using the debtor analogy God paid
his own debt. Rather like flogging Himself because His law was broken, so that
the ones who broke the law do not have to be punished. Possibly a popular
activity for monks in the middle ages but hardly a very sensible activity.
One person once wrote that Christ
substitution is like the following illustration:
Imagine that you went to visit a friend who
owned a park and it cost 5 dollars to gain admittance. The friend tells you
that you don't have to pay that, he the owner of the park will pay for you. So
he takes 5 dollars out of his pocket and then puts it in his other pocket.
Now most people if they encountered such an
occurrence would probably think that the owner was trying to be funny, and if
he was not trying to use humor most would question his intelligence. Of course
the illustration would become even more absurd if a death penalty was involved.
Looking at it rationally it would be more sensible to forgive the debt, no
games, no transfer of debt would be needed.
What about the concept of transference of
debt? At what point would the debt owed ever cease? Let us examine this
logically. We owe a debt to God because we have all sinned. Jesus Christ then
pays our debt to God as our substitute. So now we would owe a debt to Christ
for paying our debt to God. But if Christ is also God then God has paid a debt
to Himself, and we still owe him the debt because of the debt He paid for us.
Confusing isn't it. Unfortunately most people only pay lip service to the idea
that Jesus Christ and the Father are One. Their view of the substitutionary
theory is that God is owed a debt, God must have that debt paid, Jesus pays the
debt for us. Since Jesus is so loving we do not have to fear that He will ask
us to repay what we owe Him, and this is the central problem with the
substitutionary view of the atonement. The love of God is polluted by our own
misrepresentation about God.
"In
many of the popular sermons and hymns of the last two centuries Christ is set
forth as mediator between an angry God and the condemned sinner, pleading with
God for mercy, at the same time receiving the divine wrath into his own bosom
and thus averting from the sinner the consequences of his sin." (The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, vol. 7 page 270)
It is interesting to note that the New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia written in the early
part of the 1900's points us back a couple of hundred years to the time when
the substitutional theory became widely accepted. How
can such an understanding coincide with the words of Christ.
In
that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on
your behalf. No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and
have believed that I came from God. (John 16:26-27)
Remember the verse previously mentioned from
the Living Bible paraphrase. "For God sent Christ Jesus to take the
punishment for our sins and to end all God's anger against us..." Yet when
we read of Christ life it is not God who punishes Christ, it is human beings.
The
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his
servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before
Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and
Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the
author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.
(Acts 3:13-15)
Can we find in the Bible anywhere that Christ
was punished by God? It may be that the best indication found in the Bible of
God punishing Christ is found in the book of Isaiah.
He
was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him
not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we
considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was
pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the
punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and
the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and
afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the
slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his
mouth.
By
oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my
people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the
rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his
mouth. Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and
cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he
will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will
prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:3-10)
As most things in the Old Testament God is viewed as the instigator of
the suffering yet it was not God who caused the suffering. In the book of Amos
we read how God punished
"I
sent plagues among you as I did to
The plagues here were not derived from God,
but were actions that other nations carried out upon
The Bible goes so far as to say that He
became a curse:
Christ
redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is
written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." (Gal 3:13)
The assumption in the Old Testament was that
if one was hung on a tree (Deuteronomy
When
the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with
immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has
been swallowed up in victory." "Where, O death, is your victory? Where,
O death, is your sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin
is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord
Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:54-57)
To Paul the power of sin is revealed in the
law. We know what rebellion is because we see our own rebellion when we measure
ourselves against the standards in the Torah, the Old Testament books which
explain what God expects of us. When looking at Christ's treatment we can see
just how much in rebellion man is. The concepts meet here at the cross, the law
which easily points out our sin and Christ who offers us redemption from the
sting of death and the power of sin.
So
the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by
faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the
law. (Gal 3:24-25)
So what about Justice? We have seen that
Christ was not treated with justice, and we have seen that He demonstrated
incredible love for His rebellious creation. In the human court systems we
punish those who break the laws. Yet we see in God someone who can forgive even
those who commit murder and welcome the person back into a relationship with
God. The substitutionary theory proponent would ask, where is the justice in
that. As one such person once wrote:
"But as Christians, we believe that even
the most vicious of criminals can be forgiven and taken into relationship with
God ... and receive His free gift of eternal life. What is just about that? Who
avenges the poor and helpless if God does not do so? Who protects the guilty
(who have repented) from the just retribution for their criminal acts? Answer
.. Jesus does that by his suffering in their place. Thus the innocent are
'avenged' and the guilty may be forgiven without that very forgiveness being a
further offense to the innocent victims."
There is a deep problem when one looks at the
idea that the innocent victims must be avenged for the things done them by the
guilty. Our example and our God told us in living example that we should not
hold contempt for those who wrong us. None of us have ever come close to being
as wrongly treated as He was. Yet He did offer them forgiveness, and as
Christians we are told to do exactly the same thing.
For
if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also
forgive you (Matt
Then
Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my
brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered,
"I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times. (Matt 18:21-22)
And
when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so
that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." (Mark
Forgive
us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not
into temptation.'" (Luke 11:4)
What a concept! Justice is not about
punishment it is about a return to a relationship, with God or with our fellow
man. We are not to count man's wrongs against us and God does not count our
wrongs against Him (1 Corinthians 13:5). As in everything else He does a better
job of forgiving then we seem to be capable of, but the model is there. The
Bible teaches us that forgiveness is not an offense, but it is one of the
highest expression of love. This is an integral part of the righteousness of
Christ, which is the same thing as the righteousness of God. That is to say
God's right doing is to forgive those who sin against Him. Just as He tells man
what is right, to forgive those who sin against us. Repentance leads to forgiveness
which produces a person without guilt who can freely stand before his God
without shame, for his sin is cleansed, he is forgiven. He has been dressed in
the "robe of righteousness", "with garments of salvation"(
Isaiah 61:10) (See Appendix
2)
The
entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as
yourself." (Gal 5:14)
Where does that law leave us room to be upset
that a guilty man is forgiven by God? Where is there in such a law the demand
that someone must be punished. Again we see that it is not the idea of God that
such a substitution of the innocent for the guilty is needed. Christ was indeed
innocent and he did suffer because of sin. But it was at the hands of sinners,
not at the hand of God, except that it was allowed to happen to demonstrate the
love of God, the cruelty of sin and the power of God over death. Some will say
that it is God's infinite justice which demands that Christ pay the penalty for
our sin. But infinite justice would not be defined as justice which even
mankind acknowledge is not justice. Unfortunately this is generally just a word
game that people use because they have to admit that the innocent should not
have to be punished for the guilty. By placing the adjective
"infinite" before justice they attempt to deflect what is commonly
known about justice. When pressed these people will often say: "God's ways
are not man's ways. Which is certainly true for God's ways are higher, purer,
more right than that of man's (Isaiah 55:9). So His justice will also be far
better, purer and right than man's, not less than man's, or contradictory to
what God has instructed man in regards to justice.
Related to the preceding topic is the idea in
the Substitutionary theory where God was not able to forgive sins until Christ
was punished on the cross, or paid the debt depending on the term one may
prefer. The idea being that God could not forgive until someone was punished
for the sin. In short they would say the law says sin and you die, so someone
has to die. Unfortunately they have little to justify such a concept. If we
used an Old Testament verse on the subject it would say:
For
every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son-- both alike
belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die. (Ezekiel 18:4)
The writer goes on to say that the righteous
man shall live.
He
follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will
surely live, declares the Sovereign LORD. (Ezekiel 18:9)
Through the light of the New Testament we see
that the one who believes, trusts, has faith in God is declared to be
righteous. It is not because someone was punished for us, it is because we have
reconciled to God and have a restored relationship with Him.
But
because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with
Christ even when we were dead in transgressions-- it is by grace you have been
saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly
realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the
incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ
Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-- and this not
from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast.
(Ephesians 2:4-9)
Christ mission was to reconcile us back to
God by answering the allegations of Satan and our own human doubts, Christ
proved that God is love, Christ proved that sin causes pain and death, and
Christ showed us that God is the giver of life. The Genesis story of Adam and
Eve in the Garden expresses all of those doubts about God. The story shows us
the serpent insinuating that mankind won't die if they disregard God's
instruction, God does not have your best interest at heart, man can be just
like God is and know good and evil. Well we have all learned by now that
knowing evil is not such a good thing, we have seen it reveal itself in us, and
in people who killed their own creator. There is little doubt now that God
really does have our best interest at heart. Those who tell us otherwise are
indeed liars and murders (John
That
God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins
against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 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. God made him who had no
sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of
God.(2 Corinthians
When we look at how Christ who had no sin was
made sin for us we see that it is His suffering at the hands of sinners, so
that we could reconcile our distrust of God into trust in God. He put to death
our hostility to God, opening up our hearts to accept His offer of
reconciliation.
and
in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which
he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far
away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to
the Father by one Spirit. (Ephesians 2:16-18)
When
the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher
eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" On hearing this, Jesus said,
"It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn
what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call
the righteous, but sinners." (Matt 9:11-13)
A variation in the substitutional
theory which some may believe and others might not depending upon their
understanding of the Trinity and how it functions is that God himself paid the
penalty. While this is certainly the most healthy view of God, rather then
seeing God sacrificing His Son, it views the Son as God sacrificing, paying the
penalty of His own accord. As one person I know said: "He gave Himself for
us. He stepped between guilty man and the rifle bullet speeding from the gun of
sin and took the bullet in his own body rather than allowing it to destroy any
who take shelter behind his cross." While this is very similar to the
Moral Influence theory of the atonement. The difference is that in the Moral
Influence theory, there is no penalty or debt paid here. It would be a penalty
if the bullet was fired by God, but it is not. It is sin that kills, it is God
who offers life. The guilty man sees the love of God for him, he sees what sin
does to people, it caused people to hate and kill their creator. So that guilty
man can acknowledge his own rebellion and ask for forgiveness of God whom he
can clearly see is willing and able to forgive and grant the gift of life. If
only that is all there was to the substitutional
theory of the atonement. If only its purpose was to illustrate the sacrifice of
love that God did to show us how evil destroys and how much He loves us. If
there was not this idea of Christ paying a penalty or debt, and us hiding
behind Christ who suffered what we should have suffered. Then there would be no
pressing need to explain what is wrong with the Substitutional
theory of the Atonement.
The wages of sin is death the Bible
tells us, it is interesting to note that Paul does not say that the punishment
for sin is death. The idea as set forth by Paul is that sin results in death
unless one accepts the gift of life offered by God.
When
you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What
benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those
things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have
become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is
eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal
life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:20-23)
The logic behind this is fairly obvious a
person can choose life which is found in God the source of life or one can
choose to continue in rebellion and choose to give up life. Two specific times
in the Old Testament God encourages people to choose life (Deuteronomy 30:19,
II Kings
God
is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to
you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus
is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will
punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the
presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power (II Thess.
1:6-9)
The above indicates that there is certainly
going to be an end of those who rebel against God. They are people who have
enjoyed their evil and the trouble it has caused. But their evil cannot
continue, at some point it must stop. To finish the reign of the wicked they
are destroyed, as fire destroys wood leaving nothing but ash, so too the wicked
are utterly consumed (Acts
It is clear from the Bibles use of the second
death as a final destruction of both death and Hades (Rev.20:14) as well as the
destruction of Satan (Rev 20:10) that this is only a death at the end of time
for those who have made the final choice to reject God (Rev 20:15). This is not
a punishment that could ever be transferred, it is not a death that Christ
could have paid on the cross. It may help to think of "punishment" in
its dictionary definition:" to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense,
or violation". The penalty that will result from the rejection of the
source of life and the gift of life God offers. It is the eternal end of the
sin problem. Just as the world will melt with heat to make way for a new world,
so those who reject God must also be destroyed to make way for a new world
where God is all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).
One does not to have delve into the various
theories of what will happen after the second coming to understand the reaction
of the wicked to the presence of God. The Revelation tells us that they cry for
the rocks and mountains to fall on them to hid them from the face of the Savior
(
This
is his command: to give our allegiance to his Son Jesus Christ and love one
another as he commanded. (1 John
Cosmic
Bookkeeping
When reading what some authors write about
the Atonement it often sounds like some type of cosmic bookkeeping. Numerous
examples could be given but take the following from the Adventist Review
"Isn’t the everlasting gospel the good
news that Jesus, the God-man, lived a life of perfect obedience to the law and
then died as my substitute in order that I, by faith, can claim His perfect
righteousness as my own, a righteousness that comes only by faith in His
righteousness--a righteousness credited to me apart from "the works of the
law" (Gal. 2:16)?"
Though written in the form of a question this
is his view of what the gospel is. That Christ came down to earth, lived a
perfect life and then died as my substitute. While apparently this legal
fiction is comforting to people what is it saying about God. We already have
seen that God knows there is no one righteous but God. According to this legal
fiction God can, to use a bookkeeping term "cook the books" so that
instead of us appearing on the ledger with negative sums we only appear with
positives. Of course that is very appealing but does it result in anything
different from forgiveness. There is no cosmic accounting needed to forgive, no
accounts to be forged and made to look better then they really are.
What are the implications of Christ dying as
my substitute? If my account has been rearranged to say that I am righteous why
would I need a substitute to die for me? If Christ lived the perfect life and
substituted it for my life record on the supposed heavenly ledger I would not
need someone to die for me as a substitute. So again what is this legal fiction
trying to say? It is saying that God has a law, that if His law is ever broken
then someone must die to pay the penalty for breaking the law. So this legal
fiction removes from God His ability to forgive a person in favor of the option
of cosmic bookkeeping where, the one righteous one, dies, and his death is
substituted for everyone else if they want to accept the substitution. If we
used an illustration from the family we could say that the children in the
family have disobeyed their father. Let us say the crime was not weeding the
garden when that is what they were asked to do. So the father who loves his
children instead of punishing them says, "I will go and weed the garden
for you" and after weeding the garden he takes a switch and scourges
himself to take the punishment that he felt the children originally should have
received for their disobedience. Declaring to his children that he has
perfectly weeded the garden and accepted the punishment due to his children,
that he was their substitute. On his home account books, he writes that they
have weeded the garden perfectly.
When we examine the concept of substitution
in everyday life we see just how poor a concept it is. If we took it to the
criminal justice system we would be horrified at the results. As we watch a
serial murderer released and an innocent librarian executed for the crime.
Would we proclaim that justice was satisfied? Of course all analogies break
down at some point. For instance we would not say that justice was satisfied if
the judge released the murder and said he was forgiven. Even if we thought that
the murderer was really sorry for what he did and wanted to change we would not
trust that he was changed, we would at least want him locked away for the rest
of his life. God on the other hand not only has the power to forgive but the
ability to create a new mind in the criminal, one that no longer is in
rebellion to God but is willing to trust God. That faith in God is what is
counted as righteousness
However,
to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith
is credited as righteousness. (Romans 4:5)
What God considers to be righteousness is not
following all the laws which were laid down. But the faith that one has in God
is considered righteousness. To put it in less theological terms trusting God
is the right thing to do, when you do that, you are right with God. When you
trust God you believe that when He says you are forgiven, you are indeed
forgiven, you are no longer guilty before God. God presence is in your life,
you know longer live toward your old desires but desire to follow after God.
remember
that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in
Consequently,
you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people
and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
In
him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in
the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in
which God lives by his Spirit. (Ephesians 2:12-22)
Did
Jesus Die The Second Death
While it is a common concept in the substitutional theory of the atonement that Christ paid our
debt or our penalty for sin, the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) church has carried
the idea even farther. As one of the SDA quarterlies recently said: "At
the cross, Jesus died the "second death" (Rev. 20:14; 21:8)..."
(
Prominent in the SDA church is the concept
that Christ died the second death, and God poured out His wrath on Christ on
the cross. The book Seventh-day Adventists Believe..A
Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (The Ministerial
Association Review and Herald Pub. Ass. 1988) writes as follows on page 111:
"Christ's self-sacrificing is pleasing
to God because this sacrificial offering took away the barrier between God and
sinful man in that Christ fully bore God's wrath on man's sin. Through Christ,
God's wrath is not turned into love but is turned away from man and borne by
Himself." (the book is quoting from Hans K. LaRondell,
Christ Our Salvation p. 26,27)
However there is little Biblical basis for
such a statement. Certainly, the Bible does not ever speak of God's wrath on
Christ. It is most often used of those who reject God, such as:
The
wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and
wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, (Rom
Whoever
believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see
life, for God's wrath remains on him." (John 3:36)
LaRondell's conclusions seem to be based on Romans
God
presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did
this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the
sins committed beforehand unpunished-- (Romans
Be
imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love,
just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and
sacrifice to God. (Ephesians 5:2)
None of which warrant such a conclusion as
Christ bore God's wrath. The life, death, and resurrection is the
"blood" which reaches to us, to offer us the gift of forgiveness and
life. Blood in both the Old Testament and in all the other ancient religions
was a symbol of life. It is the life which Christ proved was in Him that proved
death had no hold on Him and therefore us, if we accept the gift of life He
offers. Christ always lives and always will (John 1:1) He is the Way, Truth and
the Life, it is not His death that saves us it is His life and power over all
things that save us.
There is another method often used in the SDA
church to assert that Christ suffered under the wrath of God. It is developed
something like this:
God is revealing His wrath upon the wicked,
He gives them over to their sinful desires. Likewise on the cross Christ was
delivered over for our sins. Thus God separated Himself from Christ on the
cross and Christ died the "second death".
The
wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and
wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, (Rom
Therefore
God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for
the degrading of their bodies with one another. (Rom
He
was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our
justification. (Rom
Who
was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.
(KJV)
Amazingly enough the point of tying wrath and
Christ is developed from a frequently used New Testament word variously
translated as; "betray, bring forth, cast, commit, deliver (up), give
(over, up), hazard, put in prison, recommend. (3860 paradidomi
(par-ad-id'-o-mee)". When a word is used 130
times in the New Testament it becomes clear that someone is playing fast and
loose with the principles of Biblical interpretation. How was Jesus given up is
a legitimate question, and it should well be considered:
He
who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all-- how will he not
also, along with him, graciously give us all things? (Rom
Jesus
answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world,
then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but
now is my kingdom not from hence. (John
Paul in Romans uses the idea of Christ given
up or delivered in much the same way as it is used in Acts. In Acts as well as
the text above in John, it is the idea that God allowed sinful men to lay hands
on Christ and do what sin does, kill. In fact the ultimate act of sin, is the
rebellion against God to the point where man kills his own creator. In the Book
of Acts we are told who killed Christ, and never once is it said that He died
by God. Men, human beings were the cause of the death of Christ. It is clear
that God knew it would happen and God intended to use mans evil for God's
ultimate purpose.
This
man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you,
with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
(Acts
The
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his
servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before
Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.(Acts
The
God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead-- whom you had killed by hanging
him on a tree.(Acts
Was
there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who
predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered
him-- (Acts
"We
are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in
It is not only in Acts that it is plain as to
who killed Christ, Paul and the Gospel writers wrote:
For
you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ
Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches
suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also
drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men (1 Thes
From
that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to
Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and
teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised
to life. (Matt
The
chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they
crucified him;(Luke 24:20)
There is indeed no shortage of evidence as to
who and how Christ was killed. With such strong evidence as that given above it
is peculiar that people continue to make such comments as "Christ died of
a broken heart" presuming that it was from the separation of His Father
that Christ died. Ignoring the plain facts that Christ had been beaten, and
nailed to a cross to die. As if the Roman method of execution was not efficient
at killing. (Matt 27:26 The NIV Study Bible notes "Roman floggings were so
brutal that sometimes the victim died before crucifixion." See Appendix 5)
How is it that contrary to the witnesses of
the Crucifixion that people assert that, "At the cross, Jesus died the
"second death". Unless one has a preconceived concept about Christ
death it is fairly obvious that He did not suffer the second death. The verses
which mention the second death involves complete destruction from which there
is no return. To assert such an idea is to ignore the many Biblical texts which
set forth fire as the ultimate destroyer. A concept still easily seen today,
few methods of destruction leave so little behind as does fire. In most cases
fire leaves nothing but ashes, often nothing is left to even indicate what was
destroyed.
Then
death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the
second death.(
But
the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral,
those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-- their place will
be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." (Rev
21:8)
He
who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who
overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death. (
Blessed
and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death
has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will
reign with him for a thousand years. (Rev 20:6)
No place in the Bible does it tell us that
Christ suffered the second death, however Jesus certainly mentions what will be
latter known as the second death when He says:
Do
not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be
afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matt
Those who hold to the idea that Christ died
the second death usually fall back upon a single incident in scripture to
indicate that Christ was separated from the Father causing Christ's death.
And
at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi,
Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--
which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark
They usually ignore that Jesus is quoting the
first words of the Psalmist messianic prophecy about how the messiah would be
rejected and abused by evil men.
My
God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so
far from the words of my groaning? (Psalm 22:1)
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me?", does not necessarily indicate the separation of divinity from
divinity, the human suffering which Jesus went through is certainly adequate to
explain the feeling of being forsaken. To be at the mercy of sinful man is
often a crisis. The Psalmist complains of such feeling several times. Christ,
quoting the first words of Psalm 22 give important relevance to Christ's
position as the one who suffers at the hands of evil men, yet who will
ultimately triumph. (See Appendix
4) The more prevalent Christian idea
that there was a short, momentary separation is certainly less objectionable
than a second death concept.
On the cross Jesus Christ revealed the true
nature of God. Divinity did not leave Christ on the cross, God's love was
revealed to mankind. Even while being tormented by evil men, Christ forgave
them, showing as He had earlier that He was God Himself by His ability to
forgive sin (Luke 23:34). Ultimately it was to God that Christ commits His
spirit, which is hardly the act of someone suffering under the "second
death", or someone suffering the wrath of God.
Jesus
called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my
spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46)
God has through the life death and
resurrection of Christ ransomed us from our own headlong rush toward death. Not
with the blood of sheep and calves, but with the life which is in God. A life
laid down by Christ voluntarily subjected to the torture and murder by people
in rebellion against God. To show us the love of God, the depths that He would
go to show us His love. To reveal the true nature of evil which hurts and
kills, so much so that men would kill their own creator. Finally to show us
that God is willing and able to forgive us our sins and raise us up to life
immortal. Christ who willingly laid down His life also took it back up again
(John
How
Did Jesus Bear Our Sins
Within the substitutionary theory of the
atonement is the underlying belief that sin is so offensive to God that it must
be punished, this is an element carried over from the Satisfaction Theory of
the Atonement. So those who hold to the substitutional
view of the atonement believe that sin was transferred from humans to Christ
and then Christ was punished as the one who sinned. Such verses as 1 Peter 2:24
are used to indicate this idea:
"He
himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and
live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed." (1 Peter
2:24)
That Christ bore our sin is not really the
question, the question is how did He bear our sin. To decide if Christ is our
substitute or that Christ was punished by God we first must determine how He
bore our sin. Since that is the integral part of the equation. The Penal theory
supporters would doubtless reject the Penal theory unless they could determine
some way that the Holy and Righteous Christ could justly receive a punishment
from God. This is solved for them by Christ bearing our sin. To do this they
must determine that sin can be transferred from one person to another and even
from one time to another. In other words it has to be a transfer from all
people from all time to one time and one place and one body. In the SDA church
in particular it is determined that sin was transferred during the
Of all the assumed transfers of sin in the
above scenario only one is indicated in the Bible. The other transfers are
reading a clearly substitutional view into the
ritual. The only actual occurrence of transference of sin occurs when the
Priest confesses the sins of the congregation onto the scapegoat.
He
is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the
wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites-- all their sins-- and put them on
the goat's head. He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a
man appointed for the task. (Leviticus 16:21)
It is not hard to see that this is a ritual
to enforce the concept of forgiveness. The symbolic placement of sin onto the
goat who is sent far away. The Psalmist says:
"...as
far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from
us." (Ps 103:12 )
The prophet Nathan told David:
Then
David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." Nathan
replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. (2
Sam 12:13)
This is the ceremony used to reinforce the
many references from the Prophets that God is willing and able to forgive our
sin, covering them, blotting them out, in simple terms removing the guilt of
sin.
"Forgiveness is the covering, the
concealment, the blotting out or removal of sins.. "The connection with
the O.T. is evident when forgiveness is presented in the language of sacrifice
(Matt. 26:28; Heb.
While the above Dictionary is most probably
in line with others who hold to the Penal theory we must determine how the
forgiveness is "effected through Christ and through faith in him". We
can see that the numerous Old Testament verses do not indicate that forgiveness
is based upon some future activity but is a occurrence concurrent with person's
repentance. This should lead us to the conclusion that God freely grants
forgiveness to those who seek forgiveness. In fact as we see with Jesus on the
cross as well as throughout His life on earth, He was equally free in offering forgiveness.
Christ was revealing God to the world the same God of the Old Testament who
offered forgiveness and who encouraged people to seek God and trust in Him.
What Christ put into effect was the ultimate demonstration of the character of
God in human flesh. God in the form of man to reconcile man who was hostile to
God, back to God.
All of those Old Testament verses on
forgiveness and blotting out of sin should indicate just how Christ bore our
sins in his body. Through our sin, man's rebellion, Christ was handed over to
wicked men who, in their rebellion against God, killed their own Creator. Even
as evil men had tortured and were in the process of killing Christ, Christ
offered them love and forgiveness. In short the rebellion of sin was directly and
physically directed against Christ, and while under the voluntary domination of
evil, Christ said He was willing to forgive them. The nature of forgiveness is
that ones guilt is no longer present, it has been removed, carried away. Born
away more clearly than the sins confessed on the scapegoat were removed from
God
made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the
righteousness of God (2 Corinthians
The Expositor's Bible Commentary identifies
three ways the first section of this verse could mean
1. Treated as if he were a sinner
2. Christ in his incarnation assumed human nature
"in the likeness of sinful flesh".
3. In becoming a sacrifice for or because of sin.
It is only when we add to number 1 above the
concept that Christ became the object of God's wrath and the guilt of sin that
the idea becomes in line with the substitutionary theory of atonement. Since we
find nowhere that the Bible says that God poured out His wrath on Christ, nor
anywhere that we find Christ bearing the guilt of sin. We are left with the
idea that Christ was treated as if He were a sinner by the people he came to
reconcile back to God. The actual people in rebellion against God, who, the
Bible tells us killed Christ. In number two above we see that Christ did appear
as a man, in similarity to the people who were in rebellion, and in the same
form as the people who chose to kill their creator. In number 3 above we see
how He willingly gave himself over to the control of evil men. Sacrificing
Himself to show that He loved them, to show the results of evil, and to prove
that He had indeed power over death and the grave. His power over the grave is
what the book of Hebrews refers to when it says:
But
we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with
glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might
taste death for everyone. In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that
God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of
their salvation perfect through suffering. (Hebrews 2:9-10)
Jesus who once was dead but is now alive, the
One who holds the keys to death and Hades. This is not as the previous section
mentioned the "second death" from which there is not resurrection.
For
we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death
no longer has mastery over him. (Romans 6:9)
I
am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I
hold the keys of death and Hades. (Revelation 1:18)
But
Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits
of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the
resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so
in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
(1 Corinthians 15:20-23)
When it says Christ is the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep It is clear
that the death spoken of is the same death that befalls all of the human race
until his second coming. Still there are those who would say, "At the
cross, Jesus died the "second death" it couldn't have been the first
death, because all of us, Christians or non-Christians, face that death."
Understand that they are creating a straw man fallacy, to prop up a Biblically
insupportable idea that Christ suffered the second death.
What
About Blood
So if God is able to freely forgive sins of
those who desire His forgiveness . How are we to understand the shedding of
blood as mentioned in the Bible?
In
fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and
without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. It was necessary, then,
for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but
the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. (Hebrews
9:22-23)
Clearly this is symbolic language, there is
no reason to think that somehow heavenly things were cleansed by blood which
flowed from Christ here on earth. Certainly the earthly tabernacle items were
also only symbolically cleaned by the sacrifices of blood. The Bible gives us
two primary meanings in regard to "blood". Half of the occurrences of
the word blood in the Old Testament and a quarter of the uses in the New
Testament have to do with a death by violent means. That comes to about 200
blood references in the Old Testament and 25 in the New Testament. The
Oxford Companion to the Bible notes the following also:
"There are some passages in which life
and blood are connected, principally in connection with the prohibition of
eating meat with blood still in it (Gen 9:4-6;Lev 17:11). This association has
led some scholars to conclude that in the offering of sacrifice, the death of
the victim is unimportant; sacrificial atonement does not depend on an animal
dying in place of the worshiper but rather on life set free from the body and
offered to God. Similarly, in the New Testament it is not the death of Jesus
that is the atonement, but his life." (page 93)
While the idea of life being set free from
the body is not well accepted and such is noted in the next paragraph from The
Oxford Companion to the Bible, the idea that blood is a symbol of life is
found throughout all ancient religions, as well as in the Jewish religion. As
we look at the Atonement simple logic tells us that any one part of Christ's
life, death and resurrection taken by itself would not accomplish anything. His
death would have been meaningless without his life before his death. The
resurrection is meaningless useless there was a death to be resurrected from.
Paul noted just how hopeless we would be if Christ had not been raised from the
dead.
And
if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
(1 Corinthians 15:14)
If the atonement was based upon the blood of
Christ paying man's debt such a pessimistic view would not have been necessary.
This leads to the concept that it is Christ and His everlasting life which is
the cause of our salvation. Another way of saying it is, that it is the very
existence of God the author of all life and the One who forgives and grants
salvation and presents His followers with the gift of everlasting life.
"The common symbolic element in all OT
sacrifices is the manipulation of the blood; and since it is universal, it very
probably symbolizes the essential note of the sacrificial symbolism. The blood
is sprinkled on the altar, or dashed at its base, or smeared on the horns. The
altar symbolizes the deity. In the OT thought the blood is the life; and the
ritual of the blood is the precise symbolic act of oblation by which the life
of the animal is transmitted to the deity. The mere slaughtering of the animal
is not a ritually symbolic act. Another common ritual act is the imposition of
hands upon the victim; this does not appear to support any theories of the
ritual substitution of the victim for the offerer,
but rather is an act by which the offerer declares
that this is his offering." (Dictionary of the Bible John L. Mckenzie page 755)
"Basic to both animal and human
sacrifice is the recognition of blood as the sacred life-force in man and
beast".( Encyclopedia Brittanica)
Placing the two ideas together leads to an
explanation of Christ's blood as the violent taking of the life of Christ. A
life which was dedicated to reconciliation of man back to God through Christ's
revelation of the true character of love and forgiveness that is God. The
question of Hebrews 9:22 is how does this blood purify the heavenly things? The
writer of Hebrews answers this implied question in next verses.
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's presence. (Hebrews
9:24)
The symbolism moves from His violent death to
His very life, it is the presence of God Himself that brings purity. The
symbols in the sanctuary are representative of the things of God and it is God
who is the purifying source of all that has been affected by the rebellion of
man, sin. Man can be cleansed by God's forgiveness and healing, the things of
heaven are pure by the same presence of God.
Dear
friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made
known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see
him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is
pure. (I John 3:2-3)
so
Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will
appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are
waiting for him. (Hebrews 9:28)
The writer summarizes his position in verse 28,
through Christ we have seen how God is willing to take away our sin even while
He suffered under the torture of evil men. Forgiving mans sin while enduring
the torture and death of the consequences of sin, hatred, pain and ultimately
death. This does not require a transfer of sins from man to Christ, so that
Christ can pay for those sins. It is the demonstration of the love of God who
allows us the opportunity to see how mankind rebellion leads to such cruelty as
to murder the innocent, even going so far as to kill their own creator. Even
under such a manifestation of sin as that, He willing offered to forgive man of
their sin. Then proving with his resurrection that He is God and what He said
was true, death and sin were conquered and life is offered to all who will
believe.
*All Bible verses quoted are from the New
International Version unless otherwise noted. All material written by Ron
Corson unless otherwise noted.
Atonement History
The
Moral Influence Theory
The Apostolic Fathers
About 100-200 AD Vague time frame.
Their chief emphasis is on
what Christ imparted to us: new Knowledge, Fresh life, Immortality.
Clement states: Through
Him God has called us from darkness to light from ignorance to knowledge of the
glory of His name. Clement further says that Christ endured it all on account
of us and that His sufferings should bring us to repentance. Hemas adds that Christ reveals to us the true God. Barnabas notes that
He came to abolish death and to demonstrate resurrection from the dead.
Reiterated by Abelard in
the 1100’s
Apologists also about
100-200 AD
The ideas stayed much the
same with the Apologists with the addition of the concept that not only does
God impart saving knowledge and bestow illumination, but principalities and
powers are destroyed by Him. Justin says that the aim of the incarnation was the
conquest of the serpent. Justin further adds that Christ became a man for our
sakes, so that participating in our miseries He might heal them. The essence of
the Moral Influence theory is that Christ’s Atoning work is directed to leading
man to repentance and faith by revealing the true nature of God
Irenaeus about 180 AD
The Theory of
Recapitulation (AKA Physical Theory, Mystical Theory)
This idea presupposes some
kind of mystical solidarity or identity, between the father of the race and all
his descendants. At the time of the fall they somehow already existed in Adam.
Thus Irenaeus states that just as Adam contained in himself all his descendants
(which is how all have sinned by
Origen 184-254
Origen who had one of the
greatest influences on Christian thinking incorporated a wide range of reasons
for Christ’s sacrifice. His views incorporated elements of knowledge and
illumination, mysticism, Jesus as model, Ransom to the Devil, and ideas of
substitution. Origen was an extremely creative thinker, however many of his
ideas border on the bizarre.
Ransom Theory about
350-400
This theory with elements
taken from Origin interprets the death of Christ as a Ransom paid by God to
Satan in order to secure the redemption of humanity, which has been brought
under his dominion by sin.
Different writers had
various options on this theory. Some admitted the possession of his captives,
and the death is interpreted as a ransom due to the devil on grounds of
justice. Others denied the devil has a right to sinners, but by God’s
graciousness in being unwilling to take by force that which was rightfully His.
Still others felt that man’s deliverance was secured by deception on God’s
part. Satan being deceived by the humble appearance of the Redeemer into
supposing that he had to do with a mere man. Finding only too late that the
Deity whose presence he had not perceived escaped his clutches through the
Resurrection.
Some of the adherents to
this view include Augustine, Gregory the Great, Gregory of Nyssa. Amazingly
enough this theory lasted for several centuries.
Satisfaction Theory 1100
This theory was first
produced in a clear coherent manner by Anselm in his treatise, Cur Deus Homo,
which translated means Why a Godman? Anselm finds no
reason in justice why God was under any obligation to Satan. Anselm maintains
that Christ’s Atonement concerns God and not the devil. Man by his sin has
violated the honor of God and defiled His handiwork. It is not consistent with
the Divine self-respect that He should permit His purpose to be thwarted. Yet
this purpose requires the fulfillment by man of the perfect law of God, which
by sin man has transgressed. For this transgression, repentance is no remedy,
since penitence, however sincere, cannot atone for the guilt of past sin. Nor
can any finite substitute, whether man or angel make reparation. Sin being
against the infinite God, is infinitely guilty, and can be atoned for only by
an infinite satisfaction. Thus either man must be punished and God’s purpose
fail or else man must make an infinite satisfaction, which is impossible. There
is only one way of escape, and that is that someone should be found who can
unite in his own person the attributes both of humanity and of infinity. This
is brought about by the incarnation of Christ. In Christ we have one who is
very man, and can therefore make satisfaction to God on behalf of humanity, but
who is at the same time very God, and whose person therefore gives infinite
worth to the satisfaction which He makes. Christ death which is voluntarily
given when it is not due since He was without sin, is the infinite satisfaction
which secures the salvation of man.
Substitution Theory 1500’s
(AKA Penal Theory)
The Protestant view held
many of Anselm’s presuppositions regarding Christ’s Atonement. However it was
modified in one very substantial way. The central position of the Atonement was
interpreted not as satisfaction, but as punishment, and hence given a
substitutionary significance. The infinite guilt of man’s sin which has so
utterly alienated mankind from the
The Penal Theory was
severally criticized by the Socinians, who attacked
the entire concept of substitutionary punishment. They held that punishment and
forgiveness are inconsistent ideas. If a man is punished he cannot be forgiven,
and vice versa. Under the theory of distributive justice, punishment, being a
matter of the relation between individual guilt and its consequences, is
strictly untransferable. The Socinians
held to the Moral Influence Theory as mentioned by the Apostolic Fathers and
the Apologists of the second century church.
Governmental Theory (AKA Rectoral Theory)
In response to the Socinians Hugo Grotius wrote a
work entitled The Satisfaction of Christ. Grotius
was writing in defense of the Penal/Substitution Theory, however he, perhaps
unknowingly modified the theory. In this view God does not deal with men as a
judge but as a governor, who unlike a judge may temper justice with mercy, but
the motives which lead him so to temperate are never arbitrary. Thus Christ’s
death is a substitute for punishment, a suffering inflicted by God and
voluntarily accepted by Christ, which works upon men by moral influence in
order to conserve the ends of righteousness. Such suffering on Christ’s part is
necessary, since forgiveness on the basis of repentance alone might be
misinterpreted by men and lead to grave carelessness. Among Arminians
it has practically supplanted the older Penal Theory.
These constitute the main
Salvation/Atonement theories. However there are several variations on each of
the above theories, as well as different combinations of the major theories by
other Theologians.
Sources:
Early Christian Doctrines
J.N.D. Kelly Harper & Row, Pub.
pp. 163-183, 375-395
Encyclopedia of Religion
and Ethics Vol. 5 pp. 640-650
The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia pp. 349-356
The
Robe of Christ’s Righteousness or the Covering of Forgiveness
Christ’s Death a Necessity. For a loving God to maintain His justice and
righteousness, the atoning death of Jesus Christ became "a moral and legal
necessity." God’s "Justice requires that sin be carried to judgment.
God must therefore execute judgment on sin and thus on the sinner. In this
execution the Son of God took our place, the sinner’s place, according to God’s
will. The atonement was necessary because man stood under the righteous wrath
of God. Herein lies the heart of the gospel of forgiveness of sin and the
mystery of the cross of Christ: Christ’s perfect righteousness adequately
satisfied divine justice, and God is willing to accept Christ’s self-sacrifice
in place of man’s death." 5 (Seventh-day Adventists Believe…A Biblical
Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines Review and Herald Pub Assn.
1988.p.111
Footnote 5 refers to Hans K. LaRondelle, Christ Our
…We are covered with His garment of
righteousness. When God looks at the believing, penitent sinner He sees, not
the nakedness or deformity of sin, but the robe of righteousness formed by
Christ’s perfect obedience to the law. 12 None can be truly righteous unless
covered by this robe. (P.114 footnote 12 refers to White, Christ’s Object
Lessons. p.312)
One of the interesting tenets of those who
hold to the substitutionary atonement is the idea that Christ’s Righteousness
can be imputed into the Christian. One of the methods or illustrations, which
is commonly used within the SDA community, is the idea that Christ covers our
sinfulness with his righteousness. Using the parable of the wedding feast they
determine that the robe the guest puts on is Christ’s Righteousness.
The parable found in Matt 22:1-14
Matt 22:1-14
1 Jesus
spoke to them again in parables, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a
king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those
who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to
come. "Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been
invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been
butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.' "But
they paid no attention and went off-- one to his field, another to his
business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The
king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned
their city. "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready,
but those I invited did not deserve to come. Go to the street corners and invite
to the banquet anyone you find.' So the servants went out into the streets and
gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding
hall was filled with guests. "But when the king came in to see the guests,
he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 'Friend,' he asked,
'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.
"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him
outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
"For many are invited, but few are chosen." (NIV)
To this the following verse is often related:
I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in
the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover
your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.
And Isaiah 61:10
I delight greatly in the LORD; my soul
rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and
arrayed me in a robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom adorns his head like a
priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. (NIV)
It should be noted that the term Christ’s
Righteousness or even the Righteousness of Christ are not terms the Bible ever
uses. Is the idea, common among SDA’s that by accepting the Robe of Christ’s
Righteousness when God looks at the person, He sees Christ, actually what the
Bible teaches?
Some in theology call this a legal fiction;
in other words we are not really righteous but God pretends that we are, Christ's
righteousness substitutes for our sinfulness. The Bible however gives us a far
simpler explanation then what the theologians of the past 500 years have
envisioned.
The Bible in several places speaks of those
clothed in White, (Rev 3:4-5,
Let us try for a moment to look at these
verses used above in a slightly different light. The light of forgiveness. Isa
The following information on Forgiveness is
from _The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible_ pages 306-7.It should help
us see how these concepts work together. The Strong’s number have been added in
front of the words.
"Forgiveness. In the O.T. several Hebrew
roots contain the concept of "forgive". The verb 5545 calach (saw-lakh') a primitive
root; to forgive: signifies literally "forgive, pardon" (Lev.
(lift up, take away) may also mean
"forgive" (Gen. 50:17;Ex.
Forgiveness is the covering, the concealment,
the blotting out or removal of sins. Think about how well the concept of
forgiveness fits with those clothed in White, and those at the wedding feast.
"The connection with the O.T. is evident when forgiveness is presented in
the language of sacrifice (Matt. 26:28; Heb.
We who were enemies of God are offered
forgiveness and acceptance back into a relationship with God.
"Once you were alienated from God and
were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has
reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his
sight, without blemish and free from accusation--if you continue in your faith,
established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is
the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under
heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant."(
Christ who while enduring physical torture on
the cross lovingly offered them His forgiveness. Showing all who are willing to
see that God is in fact loving, forgiving, and accepting, the return of his
prodigal sons. The author of life killed by His creation, though He was
rejected He continues to offer reconciliation, and forgiveness.
"You disowned the Holy and Righteous One
and asked that a murderer be released to you.
You killed the author of life, but God raised
him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.
By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom
you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes
through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see."
(Acts 3:14-16 NIV)
It is the Righteousness of God, the grace,
the love which offers us the "garments of salvation" the forgiveness
which is offered to all who are willing to accept His gift. A gift at present
we can only see by faith based upon the evidence which Christ brought to us by
His life death and resurrection. A faith in the character of our God.
"Dear friends, now we are children of
God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he
appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has
this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure. Everyone who sins breaks
the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
But you know that he appeared so that he
might take away our sins. And in him is no sin." ( I Jn
3:2-5. NIV)
The following quote from a nineteenth century
shows how misleading the doctrine of the Robe of Christ’s Righteousness can
become.
"The Lord Jesus Christ has prepared a
covering, the robe of his own righteousness, that he will put on every
repenting, believing soul who by faith will receive it. Said John, "Behold
the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world." Sin is the transgression of the law; but Christ died to make it
possible for every man to have his sins taken away. A fig-leaf apron will never
cover our nakedness. Sin must be taken away, the garment of Christ's
righteousness must cover the transgressor of God's law. Then when the Lord
looks upon the believing sinner, he sees, not the fig-leaves covering him, but
his own robe of righteousness, which is perfect obedience to the law of
Jehovah."
The legal fiction of a God who needs to
pretend that the Christian is perfectly obedient to the Laws. Instead of a God
who sees our imperfections yet offers us forgiveness and reconciliation out of
His love.
No games, no legal maneuvers are necessary
for God to forgive and accept us back from our wanderings in a far country.
Just love.
Can God who is righteous just forgive us
sinners? Don't we need some sort of legal action such as Forensic Justification
to declare us right with God? The answer is found in the nature of God, He is
righteous, everything He does is righteous. God asks us to move beyond the
challenges which the nation of
So is forgiveness enough?
"know that a man is not justified by
observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith
in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by
observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified."
(Gal
"For it is by grace you have been saved,
through faith-- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--"
(Eph 2:8 NIV)
"Therefore, since we have been justified
through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through
whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And
we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God." (Rom 5:1-2 NIV)
It may very well be that every person is
forgiven by God, yet unless that forgiveness is accepted it does little good.
Those who accept the forgiveness understand that they are at peace with God. If
a person can have the faith or trust in God to believe that God has forgiven
them, they would also have the trust in God that is their hope be a new
creation (2 Cor
"Or do you show contempt for the riches
of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness
leads you toward repentance?" (Rom 2:4 NIV)
Remember earlier the poetic words of Isaiah
61:10: I delight greatly in the LORD; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has
clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of
righteousness, as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride
adorns herself with her jewels. (NIV)
A common practice in the Bible literature is
the use of couplets, repeating phrases with slightly different words to
emphasize the meaning. Notice how the only instance in the Bible where the
phrase Robe of Righteousness is used.
1. delight in the Lord.....soul rejoices in
God
2. clothed me in garments of
salvation.....arrayed in robe of righteousness
3. bridegroom adorns head......bride adorns
with jewels.
Salvation is the robe of righteousness, as we
have seen above the covering is in fact forgiveness. See how John emphasizes his
point in I John 1:9-10: " If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just
and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we
claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no
place in our lives." (NIV)
He forgives us and purifies us from all
unrighteousness. We tend to separate the two phrases instead of noticing how
they are both saying the same thing (forgive and purify). It calls our
attention back to the many Old Testament references on forgiveness. There is
clear correlation between the covering symbolism of the Old Testament with
forgiveness, but not a clear connection with the concept of imputed
righteousness. Imputed Righteousness may and certainly has been developed from
other Bible texts. But it does not have the simple direct connection which is
found in the symbols of forgiveness.
Is the forgiven person safe to save (that
phrase so many SDA's love), no it is only those who by faith in God accept the
forgiveness of God. That is Justification by faith, not a legal maneuver, but a
grant of supreme love which removes enmity between us and God. Demonstrated to
all by the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. No one who trusts God
is ever going to ask is this or that person safe to save. If they have been
reconciled with God why would we question their reconciliation.
From the CD The Robe by Wes King (1993):
The Robe
"Come as you are and He will cleanse
you. You are guilty; your pardon is of God" --Charles H. Spurgeon
Anyone whose heart is cold and lonely/ Anyone
who can’t believe/ Anyone whose hands are worn and empty/ Come as you are
Anyone whose feet are tired of walking/ And even lost their will to run/ There
is a place of rest for your aching soul/ Come as you are Chorus: For the robe
is of God/ that will clothe your nakedness/ And the robe is His grace/ It’s all
you all you need/ Come as you are Anyone who feels that they’re unworthy/
Anyone who’s just afraid/ Come sinner, come and receive His mercy/ Come as you are.
Could
The Scapegoat Really Be Christ?
The SDA church is rather unique in the
Christian community, her view of Azazel the Scapegoat
of Lev. 16 is completely opposite that held by most Christians. The SDA church
holds that Azazel represent Satan not Christ. Here is
what the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe... A Biblical Exposition of 27
Fundamental Doctrines:
2. Azazel, the
scapegoat. "The translation ‘scapegoat’" (escape goat) of the Hebrew azazel comes from the Vulgate caper emissarius,
"goat sent away" (Lev. 16:8, RSV, KJV, margin). A careful examination
of Leviticus 16 reveals that Azazel represent Satan,
not Christ, as some have thought. The arguments supporting this interpretation
are: " (1) the scapegoat was not slain as a sacrifice and thus could not
be used as a means of bringing forgiveness. For ‘ without shedding of blood is
no remission’ (Heb 9:22); (2) the sanctuary was entirely cleansed by the blood
of the Lord’s goat before the scapegoat was introduced into the ritual (Lev 16:20);
(3) the passage treats the scapegoat as a personal being who is the opposite of
, and opposed to, God (Leviticus 16:8 reads literally, ‘One to Yahweh and the
other to Azazel’). Therefore, in the setting of the
sanctuary parable, it is more consistent to see the Lord’s goat as a symbol of
Christ and the scapegoat Azazel--as a symbol of
Satan." (Page 318-319 Chapter 23)
Satan is Bound. The events that take place at
this time were foreshadowed in the scapegoat ritual of the Day of Atonement in
Similarly, Christ, in the heavenly sanctuary,
has been ministering the benefits of His completed atonement to His people; at
His return He will redeem them and give them eterrnal
life. When He has completed this work of redemtion
and the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, He will place the sins of His
people upon Satan, the originator and instigator of evil. In no way can it be
said that Satan atones for the sins of believers--Christ has fully done that.
But Satan must bear the responsibility of all the sin he has caused those who
are saved to commit. And as "a fit man" led the scapegoat into an
uninhabited land, so God will banish Satan to the desolate and uninhabited
earth (see chapter 23 of this book).
Understanding the above view it would seem
appropriate to compare these two diametrically opposing views of Azazel, the scapegoat. As an overview here is what Ungers Bible Dictionary has to say:
The Hebrew term translated in the A.V.
"scapegoat." It is a word of doubtful interpretation, and has been
variously understood.
1. By some it is thought to be the name of
the goat sent into the desert. The objection to this is that in vers. 10, 26 the Azazel clearly
seems to be that for or to which the goat is let loose.
2. Others have taken Azazel
for the name of the place to which the goat was sent. Some of the Jewish
writers consider that it denotes the height from which the goat was thrown;
while others regard the word as meaning "desert places"
3. Many believe Azazel
to be a personal being, either a spirit, a demon or Satan himself. The
cabalists teach that in order to satisfy this evil being and to save Israel
from his snares, God sends him the goat burdened with all the "iniquities
and transgressions" of his people once a year. But we think it entirely
improbable that Moses under divine guidance would cause
The Jews have a rather mixed tradition, some
hold it is the name of the place the goat was taken and others that it is an
evil spirit, in that vain the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia says:
"the name of an evil spirit, represented as dwelling in the wilderness, to
which a goat, laden by the high priest with the ritual uncleanness and iniquity
of the sanctuary, priesthood and people, was sent out as an important part of
the Yom Kippur ritual...that ceremony recorded in the Bible represents the
survival and adaptation to Jewish religious practice of an old, pre-Israelite,
idolatrous rite, which was apparently so deeply rooted in Jewish folk-practice
that it could not be rooted out." (Page 561-2)
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia finishes
the section by saying: "The etymology of the name Azazel
is uncertain, although it may perhaps be correlated with the name of the old Syro-Canannite deity Aziz."(Page
562)
But by far the majority of the Christian
church holds to the concept that Christ is represented by the scapegoat. Here
are some examples from readily available reference works which see Jesus Christ
as the Scapegoat.
Eatons Bible Dictionary, Adam Clarke's Commentaries, Matthew
Henry's Concise Whole Bible Commentary, John Wesley's Notes on the Bible 1599
Also found in the writings of the early
church fathers Justin Martyr and Barnabus . (Origen
held the opposite view, but one must remember it was Origen which gave us the
idea that Lucifer in Isaiah 14 is the Devil also. He also thought that the
Leviathan in Job was also the devil).
But the question must ultimately come down to
where does the evidence from the Bible lead us. Which of these two opposing
views have the most Biblical support. Since the SDA position has already been
stated above it appears to be a good beginning point. The 3 evidences which the
SDA’s Believe book mentioned were: (1) the scapegoat was not slain as a
sacrifice and thus could not be used as a means of bringing forgiveness. For ‘
without shedding of blood is no remission’ (Heb 9:22); (2) the sanctuary was
entirely cleansed by the blood of the Lord’s goat before the scapegoat was
introduced into the ritual (Lev 16:20); (3) the passage treats the scapegoat as
a personal being who is the opposite of , and opposed to, God (Leviticus 16:8
reads literally, ‘One to Yahweh and the other to Azazel’).
Therefore, in the setting of the sanctuary parable, it is more consistent to
see the Lord’s goat as a symbol of Christ and the scapegoat Azazel--as
a symbol of Satan."
1. "The scapegoat was not slain."
This ignores how symbolism is used. The high priest was not slain either yet he
served as a model of the mediation which Christ establishes between God and
man. And what about the candlesticks, the bread and a host of other things
present which symbolize elements of Christ’s ministry. If the scapegoat is
viewed as an example of how Christ completely removes from mankind their sins,
it becomes an espeacilally meaningful illustration.
God removing from His people all their guilt, sin and transgressions. It must
be remembered that no symbol used in the sanctuary service could even come
close to encompassing all that the Messiah was to do. Therefore many different
symbols were used.
For the blood of sheep and goats does
nothing. It is symbolic for the gift God gives us through Jesus Christ. Heb
10:4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away
sins. (NIV)
The atonement was symbolized through the
sacrifice of the animal. Just as the scapegoat symbolizes the removal of our
sins. As if they were thrown into the sea, or separated by the sky. We are
dealing with symbols here. The remains of the goat sacrificed were then taken
outside the camp and burned, this does not mean that Christ must be burned, the
lesson was taught already, at some point all symbols lose their meaning.
The Bible tells us who it is that takes away
the sins of the world, and that person is Jesus Christ.
I Jn 3:5 But you
know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no
sin.
John
Isa 53:6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us
has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:11-12 After the suffering of his soul, he will see
the light and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify
many, and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion
among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he
poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he
bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Isa 53:4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried
our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and
afflicted
Heb 9:28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take
away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear
sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
Heb
1 Pet
I Jn 3:5 But you
know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no
sin.
2 Cor
Christ fulfills the antitypical symbol of the
scapegoat. There is no need for Satan to bare anyone's sins. He has his own
sins to bare and they will prove to be unbearable. But the evidence that Satan
will have sins transferred upon him at the end of time must be considered.
Unfortunately for those hold the scapegoat as Satan position no Biblical
support is available. They have but one reference which really has little to do
with the situation regarding the Day of Atonement. Calling attention to the
verses in Rev 20:2-3 they note the banishment of Satan for a 1000 years chained
and confined to the bottomless pit, where he can no longer decieve
the nations till the thousand years are finished.
(2) the sanctuary was entirely cleansed by
the blood of the Lord’s goat before the scapegoat was introduced into the
ritual (Lev
It is important to note that the above is a
false assumption since the atonement is
not completed until after the scapegoat is
sent away, and further offerings are made. (atonement is made for
goat. (NIV) later we see the atonement
continues Lev
All the symbols on the Day of Atonement should
be taken together, it is unfortuant that some feel
the need to separate the elements instead of searching for the general meanings
which the rituals point toward. The entire day is about the cleansing of the
people.
Lev
(3) The passage treats the scapegoat as a
personal being who is the opposite of , and opposed to, God (Leviticus 16:8
reads literally, ‘One to Yahweh and the other to Azazel’).
If this were really true then Satan would
truly be the one who removes sin from
To stand two things in contradistinction
suggests they are both personal beings is an unwarranted suggestion. Consider
what Jesus said: Matt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will
hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise
the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (KJV) Mammon is money, wealth,
riches etc. it is not a personal being.
Instead of opposing positions it could be a
form of Parallelism, both are for the Lord, Lev 16:10 But the goat chosen by
lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD to be used for
making atonement by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat. (NIV) the
meaning of Lev 16:8 He is to cast lots for the two goats-- one lot for the LORD
and the other for the scapegoat. (NIV) indicates two functions, one killed as
sacrifice and one to show sins removal. Verse 7 shows us that both goats were
presented before the Lord. Thus it is clear that both are used in the
Atonement. This atonement is to God not to Satan. Notice verse 5 "From the
Israelite community he is to take two male goats for a sin offering and a ram
for a burnt offering." (NIV) Both goats are a sin offering, both are for
atonement also (verse 10, 16 respectively refer to the scapegoat, and the goat
killed.)
There is no opposition both are used for God
to reveal the intended lesson. Both goats were used were the highest quality,
why not use a disgusting and deformed goat for Satan. The reason is that both
the sacrificed and the goat of removal as well as the other animals and the priest
and the water and so much more are symbols for Jesus Christ. The concept of
placing Satan in the Day of Atonement ritual is totally out of place with all
the other symbols used in the sanctuary and its services.
When considering the limits of the symbols
used it makes perfect sense to see each article or symbol as one small phase of
the Messiah’s ministry and plan of redemption. All can only vaguely foreshadow
but through the light of the New Testament we can clearly see in what direction
the rituals were pointing. The many acts and sacrifices on the Day of Atonement
all meet their true meaning in Jesus Christ. (The book of Hebrews is the
primary source for the interpretations involving the sanctuary)
It may be helpful at this point to show that
a lamb used in the Old Testament may mean an animal from sheep or goat species,
and even of age over 1 year old. This is somewhat different from the way we
view the term lamb today. Speaking of the Passover lamb the Bible says: Exod 12:3 Tell the whole community of
It is not so much to the Bible that people go
to find the idea that Satan is the scapegoat. It is interestingly to the pseudoapocryphal book of 1Enoch. The book of Enoch was
written not earlier than 300 BC and possibly as late as 100 BC. It is a book
which recounts the journeying of Enoch under divine guidance, through the
entire earth and through the seven heavens, and all the mysteries of heaven and
earth. Widely accepted by Christians till the time of Jerome it is now rejected
by the majority of Christianity and also by Jews. But the use of the word Azazel is found in this book. Since many have never
actually read the book of Enoch the following is included to give the reader a
sense of what this book is about.
Azazel as introduced in 1 Enoch.
[Chapter 8]
1 And Azazel taught
men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known
to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and
ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all
kinds of costly stones, and all 2 colouring
tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication,
and they 3 were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjaza taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, 'Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqijal
(taught) astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel
the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the
sun, and Sariel the course of the moon. And as men
perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven . . .
Sounds quite a bit like many a pagan myths
doesn’t it. Now the second mention of Azazel.
[Chapter 9]
1 And then Michael, Uriel,
Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being 2 shed
upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth. And they said
one to another: 'The earth made without inhabitant cries the voice of their cryingst up to the gates of heaven. 3 And now to you, the
holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make their suit, saying, "Bring our
cause 4 before the Most High."' And they said to the Lord of the ages:
'Lord of lords, God of gods, King of kings, and God of the ages, the throne of
Thy glory (standeth) unto all the generations of the
5 ages, and Thy name holy and glorious and blessed unto all the ages! Thou hast
made all things, and power over all things hast Thou: and all things are naked
and open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all 6 things,
and nothing can hide itself from Thee. Thou seest
what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all
unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were
(preserved) in heaven, which 7 men were striving to learn: And Semjaza, to whom Thou hast given authority to bear rule
over his associates. And they have gone to the daughters of men upon the earth,
and have slept with the 9 women, and have defiled themselves, and revealed to
them all kinds of sins. And the women have 10 borne giants, and the whole earth
has thereby been filled with blood and unrighteousness. And now, behold, the
souls of those who have died are crying and making their suit to the gates of
heaven, and their lamentations have ascended: and cannot cease because of the
lawless deeds which are 11 wrought on the earth. And Thou knowest
all things before they come to pass, and Thou seest
these things and Thou dost suffer them, and Thou dost not say to us what we are
to do to them in regard to these.'
There is nothing inspired about this book, It
is replete with mythological names, and that causes people to look at it as
some sort of authority to explain Azazel? There is
really no reason that Christians should appeal to this book. It is true that
Jude makes a reference to one line of the Book, but that is hardly an
endorsement. And further not one New Testament author gave any indication of Azazel being Satan.
Even the book of Enoch does not equate Azazel with Satan.
However the Pagan influences seen in the book
of Enoch do bring us back to the interesting coincidences which exist in the
Bible and other ancient myths. There is evidence which suggests that God took
religious practices which the people were familiar with and recast them to
better indicate what God had in mind for His plan of redemption of mankind.
This is a bit outside the scope of this article but it is an important
consideration, that should be kept in mind. The following is from Ugarit and the Bible
(http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm):
"Yet another interesting parallel
between
"KTU (Keilalphabetische
Texte aus
(All of these tables were written in the
period around 1300-1200 BCE.)Some may feel that it is inappropriate for God to
take pagan practices and adopt them for His use. But there is really no reason
to object, God meets people where they are and in the case of
But we move back to the pagan conceptions
when we remove Christ from the scapegoat and replace Him with Satan. All other
Sanctuary symbols relate to God’s act of forgiveness of His people. In which
case Satan has no part at all. Sin is not an entity that can or needs to be
transferred about. The scapegoat illustrates God’s removal of sin from our
lives. It is blotted out, forgotten. There is no need of it to be placed on
Satan at the end of time. To do this is to confuse the symbol used to teach a
lesson with what the lesson really is. And finally the Bible never says that
sin is transferred to Satan either at the Day of Atonement or at the end of
this age.
Psalm
on the Cross
By Ron
Corson
A song was sang that day, a Psalm of praise
was recited by a voice, tired and sore. Presented by a man spread out in pain,
rejected by the ones he loved (1) . Crucified for no crime at all (2), Jesus
Christ died on a cross raised up outside the city named for peace. There are
multitudes of songs written about that love, exhibited on the cross, but what
about the song that Jesus sang.
It is thought by many that David first gave
us the song that Jesus sang that day. David the poet, David the often tormented
soul, But oh how the psalm fits our lives from ages past to ages yet to come.
It is a song of triumph moving out from despair, from pain and sorrow to hope
and gladness. It is the song of humanity accepting the healing touch of a God
of love.
It begins with the words Jesus uttered on the
cross, the lines which carried to the listeners the whole Psalm that we find in
Psalm 22 today. "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so
far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?" (3) Like the
Psalmist of old Jesus was rejected, hated, despised for crimes not committed.
To the average man on the street here was a sad specimen of humanity, a cursed
thing, an object of derision (4) . But like the psalmist of old he was not
forsaken, for the song continues.
"In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them. They cried to you and were saved; in you
they trusted and were not disappointed." (5) We are not alone; the God of
the Universe does not leave and turn his back on us. While it may seem to those
on the outside that we are abandoned by God, rejected or even cursed by God, we
know in whom we trust. Even as the psalmist sang so we hear Jesus Christ commit
his spirit to God, trusting the God of the Universe, even when Jesus Christ was
besieged by the pain of torture inflicted by those who he created. (6)
Today we sing of "Love that will not let
me go", and so did the psalmist of old. (7) "For he has not despised
or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face
from him but has listened to his cry for help." We don't know what is good
for us, like the psalmist we cry for help, (8) not even knowing what help we
may need. But with the psalmist we can trust in the God who will not leave us.
As the psalmist concludes, as Jesus Christ concluded, "They will proclaim
his righteousness to a people yet unborn-- for he has done it." (9)
"It is finished"; God in the form of a man demonstrated the love,
which makes him God. "Forgive them for they don't know what they are
doing". Such great lengths to reconcile us back to God. A God not of
punishment and retribution, but of love and forgiveness, a God who will never
leave you or forsake you.
The very God, who sings your own song,
touched by the cruelty that finds us all. Always offering us the same gift of
forgiveness and reconciliation, "That sweet sweet
song of Salvation", (10) a healed relationship with our Creator.
1 Matt.
The
Flogging
Many people do not realize just how brutal
the beating of Christ prior to the Crucifixion was, they therefore assume that
there was some other cause by which Christ died. The following information will
show how it was indeed possible for Christ to have died within such a short
period of time. However we must not discount Christ's own words that no man
could take his life from him. Thus is is highly
possible that His death occurred when He decided it would.
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of
my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up
again. This command I received from my Father." (John 10: 18)
From the Expositior's
Bible Commentary
Pilate saw that he could not change the mind
of the mob. He would have to go through with Jesus' crucifixion. His previous
handling of matters relating to the Jews' religion had not endeared him to the
people. To risk alienating them in this crisis would be too dangerous for him
politically. His wife's message had made him think more deeply about Jesus than
he might otherwise had done (cf. v. 12). Yet he
was a Roman career politician, and a great deal was at stake for him. An
official complaint to
Since flogging did not necessarily precede
crucifixion, Pilate was still hoping he could dissuade the crowd from their
demand for Jesus' crucifixion (cf. John 19:1-7,
where after the flogging Pilate tried to persuade them against crucifixion) by
administering a severe flogging instead. In any case, flogging was no light
punishment. The Romans first stripped the victim and tied his hands to a post
above his head. The whip (flagellum) was made of several pieces of leather with
pieces of bone and lead embedded near the ends. Two men, one on each side of
the victim, usually did the flogging. The Jews mercifully limited flogging to a
maximum of forty stripes; the Romans had no such limitation. The following is a
medical doctor's description of the physical effects of flogging.
The heavy whip is brought down with full
force again and again across Jesus' shoulders, back and legs. At first the
heavy thongs cut through the skin only. Then, as the blows continue, they cut
deeper into the subcutaneous tissues, producing first an oozing of blood from
the capillaries and veins of the skin, and finally spurting arterial bleeding
from vessels in the underlying muscles.... Finally the skin of the back is
hanging in long ribbons and the entire area is an unrecognizable mass of torn,
bleeding tissue. (C. Truman Davis, "The Crucifixion of Jesus. The Passion
of Christ from a Medical Point of View,"
It is not surprising that victims of Roman
floggings seldom survived.
After going through this terrible ordeal,
Jesus was handed over by Pilate to be crucified. The use of the phrase "handed
over" may be a deliberate attempt to identify Jesus with the Suffering
Servant of Isaiah 53:6, 12, since these words are used there (LXX) of the Servant.
-----
A Flogging of a Roman Prisoner. The floggers in Roman times were called "Lictors".... hence the usage: "...getting a licking...". At any rate, the lictors were reportedly trained in physiology to the extent that they would monitor the victim's pulse and breathing so that they could take a beaten person to the brink of death.... When one more stroke would kill... and if they miscalculated.... alas, they would endeavor to be more careful next time... In fact, this punishment was referred to as "The Near Death". I have written in the drawings inserted caption "...39 strokes..." In truth, the 39 lashes limit was a biblical limit set in Hebrew Law. The Romans had no such inclination on setting an upper limit to the number of lashes to be inflicted. (The Romans would administer as many lashes as the victim could take. If the victim fainted, they would throw cold water in his face. A victim might faint several times and the whipping would continue. If the half-conscious victim had his eyes closed, the Lictor would open his eyes with his thumb and forefinger... if the victim's eyes were "rolled back" so that only the whites of his eyes showed, he was one lash away from death and the whipping was stopped. If the victim had his pupils facing forward, and could see (even a little) or focus his eyes on the Lictor, the whipping would continue) The preceeding from an article found at: http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dungeon/1461/rome28.htm
see also http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/3894/easter/cruscourg.html
An excellent article on Crucifixion is found
at http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/crucifixion.html by Joe Zias was the Curator
of Archaeology/Anthropology for the Israel Antiquities Authority from 1972 to
1997. He is now retired. He is available for public lectures throughout the
world.
-------------------------------------
Encyclopedia Britannica
About Crucifixion
"Crucifixion: important method of
capital punishment, particularly among the Persians, Seleucids, Jews,
Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD.
Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor, abolished it in the
various methods of performing the execution.
Usually, the condemned man, after being whipped, or "scourged,"
dragged the crossbeam of his cross to the place of punishment, where the
upright shaft was already fixed in the ground. Stripped of his clothing either
then or earlier at his scourging, he was bound fast with outstretched arms to
the crossbeam or nailed firmly to it through the wrists. The crossbeam was then
raised high against the upright shaft and made fast to it about 9 to 12 feet
(approximately 3 metres) from the ground. Next, the
feet were tightly bound or nailed to the upright shaft. A ledge inserted about
halfway up the upright shaft gave some support to the body; evidence for a
similar ledge for the feet is rare and late. Over the criminal's head was
placed a notice stating his name and his crime. Death, apparently caused by
exhaustion or by heart failure, could be hastened by shattering the legs (crurifragium) with an iron club, so that shock and
asphyxiation soon ended his life. Crucifixion was most frequently used to
punish political or religious agitators, pirates, slaves, or those who had no
civil rights. In 519 BC Darius I, king of
The account of Jesus Christ's Crucifixion in
the Gospels begins with his scourging. The Roman soldiers then mocked him as
the "King of the Jews" by clothing him in a purple robe and a crown
of thorns and led him slowly to