Prior to accepting the free gift, people must admit that they themselves are such vile sinners that they in fact deserve death.
Also, the Bible teaches that justice is not something that people "get." Courts don't give justice, ask any lawyer. Justice is something that people "give." How? Want justice? Live righteous. So, I say, "Know Justice, Know Peace!"
I love it! Great article 😇🙏🏼 I would only add that because of what Christ did on the cross, believers now have the authority to live out God’s justice and mercy to the world by acting like Jesus. This completely satisfies God’s attributes of mercy and justice as a witness to the world for His glory!
Substitutionary atonement never really made sense to me. "Someone has to get punished because God's pissed" is a little hard to square with the love God shows throughout the old and new testaments. Wrapping that wrath in God's sense of justice or holiness doesn't improve it. I'm guessing you've seen the Gospel in Chairs?
I find this a very useful metaphor. The Trinity is a relationship of mutual love -- God's essence is love. I didn't always believe this. My response to "Jesus is love" signs on churches used to be, "no, Jesus is Lord". And He is. And many churches use those signs as excuses to condone sin. But they're still true: God is love. And Love is patient, and kind, and does not envy or boast, and is not proud or self-seeking or easily angered. Love keeps no record of wrongs but protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Substitutionary atonement doesn't even come close to that. It's not that it's wrong technically, it's just so incomplete.
I am in the same boat, never made sense to me. Became Orthodox and theology is so much better. I highly recommend listening to Lord of Spirits podcast where they discuss this topic from many different angles.
You've identified God's character trait of perfect love, and you're spot on with that. But God also has a character trait of justice with respect to The Law. God loves you and so he shows you mercy by providing the substitutionary atonement through Jesus in order to satisfy his sense of justice. So, it's not that "Someone has to get punished because God's pissed." Someone has to get punished because someone is guilty.
In other words, God's wrath flows from his judgement, not the other way around. He's not pissed first and therefore somebody's gotta get smacked to in order that he should calm down. Rather, it's that he judges you a transgressor and therefore unfit for heaven and thus you must be deposited into the lake of fire. God's wrath is embodied in the separation of hell. To put it another way, Jesus's death isn't designed to make God less wrathful, to calm him down, to make him less pissy. Rather, it's designed that sinners can stand justified before the Law, thus satisfying God's requirement for justice and holiness. In so doing that, we also avoid God's wrath, but that's secondary, because we avoid hell altogether. To further clarify, God doesn't punish us by being "pissed" or angry at us. He punishes us with separation.
I watched the Orthodox chair video and to be honest, it didn't make much sense to me. Further, it seemed to be suggesting that everybody goes to heaven in the Orthodox world, which is definitely not Biblical. If I've misunderstood the key point of the example, I apologize. I'll admit to not being up to par on Orthodox doctrine, so perhaps I'm mis-hearing the message. I didn't bother watching the 30 minute version; perhaps it gives a more understandable version.
"Substitutionary atonement doesn't even come close to that. It's not that it's wrong technically, it's just so incomplete."
So, I have no idea what this means. Substitutionary atonement is amazingly loving and very complete. Without Jesus, we have no way to the Father. We are sinners, guilty before the Law, and would have to pay the penalty for that guilt ourselves. God loves us, but we're still guilty before the Law. But through his substitutionary atonement, the penalty is paid by him. If that's not love, I don't know what is. John 15:13 says, "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends."
The word atonement was made up when trying to translate Yom Kippur, because the English translator did not understand the word Kippur, which was originally Keffir, or something similar. The word that was created was initially At-one-ment. There is no other etiology for that word. The original Hebrew word simply means cover, wiping away. There is no substitution needed and there was no such thing as atoning. And no atheist will find it loving to punish someone for something they did not do. Christ's death has much deeper meaning than simply taking on punishment he didn't deserve. I recommend reading some church fathers to get a better understanding. Substitutionary atonement is a much later invention.
Let me key on this line: "Someone has to get punished because someone is guilty."
In the Greek myth, Pythias is guilty (his punishment is just), but his friend Damon volunteers to be killed in his place if he fails to return from seeing his family one last time. If Pythias had failed to return would King Dionysius be just in killing Damon? I think not. Guilt just can not be transferred like that, and for innocent Damon to die in place of guilty Pythias would be a profound injustice (in our eyes and God's). Were Medieval castle guards just to use whipping boys to take the punishment deserved by the prince for his transgressions? Again, I think not. Punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty can never be just, and thus how could it appease the sense of justice of a perfect God? Clearly something more is going on there, and the missing piece is love.
Our salvation is not in Christ's blood and suffering but in his obedience and love. The first Adam screwed that part up; the 2nd Adam got it right. Christ’s death is an obedient act of redemptive love, not simply a legal punishment.
Yes, the Orthodox are definitely not universalists, and that hint is the one quibble I have with Jersak's presentation. "It is appointed once for man to die and then the judgement."
BTW: Please don't ever take anything I write personally. You and I are debating really fine points of theology here, but I suspect we probably agree on 95%. We're not quite in "how many angels dance on the head of a pin?" territory, but we're close. Calvin and Luther and Wesley and many others have spilled lots of ink over issues like this largely to no avail. In the end, I'm perfectly content with the Catholic/Orthodox teaching that Christ's atonement is a "mystery"; C.S. Lewis was also content with this. I don't need anything beyond that, and I think going beyond that causes problems.
Maybe if you or I were running the universe it would not work that way. But in God's universe, apparently, it does. I can only say that God seems to be satisfied with that transference of guilt.
"Punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty can never be just"
Let's be clear that God doesn't just punish person X for the crimes of person Y, selecting X at random. And, specifically, that isn't what happened in this case. Rather, Jesus made a voluntary sacrifice of himself in order that he could satisfy the punishment required of God's sense of justice for everyone else. Go back to John 15:13: "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends." The person has to willingly say, "I'll pay the price for another." And, the sacrifice must be acceptable to God. I can't die for your sins because I'm a sinner also and I have my own debt to pay.
"Our salvation is not in Christ's blood and suffering but in his obedience and love. The first Adam screwed that part up; the 2nd Adam got it right. Christ’s death is an obedient act of redemptive love, not simply a legal punishment."
Our salvation is certainly achieved through Christ's blood. The Bible makes that very clear. His obedience and love were important factors in both his ability and desire to be the perfect sacrifice in our place, but we're not saved "by Christ's obedience" or saved "by his love." His obedience led him to the cross. If he hadn't been obedient, that would be sin, and he had to be sinless. His love caused him to leave heaven and live within a broken creation. If he hadn't loved us, there would have been no motivation to sacrifice himself for our sake. Think through the opposite scenario. Christ could have been obedient and stayed in heaven as part of the godhead (where "obedience" sort of loses its meaning), loving humanity, but watching us go to our doom. But that would not have saved us.
There is certainly some mystery surrounding the mechanics of this transaction or why God chose to do it this way. I can't tell you what the "rules" are for all such transactions as the Bible doesn't say and I suspect this is the first, last, and only such transaction that will ever take place in this way. I also can't peer into the mind of God and say that there weren't other things that might have satisfied both his sense of justice and mercy. But the Bible is pretty clear that this was the transaction that took place.
I'd note that "suffering" seems to be a particular fixation with Catholicism, but there's not much to back it up. While Christ certainly did suffer (he was basically tortured and then given over to one of the most diabolical methods of death imaginable), the Bible doesn't say that we're justified by his being roughed up and flogged. And if you look at the Old Testament, where the Jewish sacrificial system was a foreshadowing of what had to happen with Christ, there are no instructions in Exodus to torture the animals before slaughtering them on the alter. But there are instructions for the animals to be without blemish, again, foreshadowing the requirement for Christ to be sinless.
I think Jesus had to be sacrificed, not merely die. That is, when you realize that the whole Jewish sacrificial system was a foreshadowing of what ultimately had to happen with Jesus, nobody would have thought that if you allowed your bull to die of old age in the field that you were cleansed. It's the same with Jesus. But I don't think he necessarily had to suffer in a human sense. That is, it isn't clear to me that the scourging that he received at the hand of the Romans was specifically necessary for our redemption. He certainly suffered in a spiritual sense, being utterly cut off from God, severing that perfect connection with the Father severed for those three days.
I appreciate the article, David. I wouldn't disagree with it, in general.
At the same time, my training forces me to look for assumptions. When there's an assumption, I typically ask "why is that?" Here are two examples... if you would, I'd love to read a follow-up:
"Because the wages of sin is death and because sinners are guilty, somebody has to die in order to satisfy God’s perfect sense of justice. If that doesn’t happen, then God makes a mockery of his Law..."
Who decided that the wages of sin is death? God did, of course. Why do you think He created that law? Could He have decided otherwise? If so, why do you think He chose that option, rather than a less perfect one?
"In particular, it had to be somebody who was sinless, otherwise their death would just pay for their own sin."
I'm sure you and I agree that nobody forced God to do it this way. Why do you think He decided that the sacrifice had to be sinless? How does Jesus' sinlessness cause His death to pay for my sin? I understand that it DOES... I'm wondering about the intent behind God's decision.
Thanks for your consideration. Have a great day! 😎
Great questions. I'll try to answer as best I can. That said, you're asking me why God made the choices he did, so I'm definitely not qualified to speak for him.
"Who decided that the wages of sin is death? God did, of course. Why do you think He created that law? Could He have decided otherwise? If so, why do you think He chose that option, rather than a less perfect one?"
Well, "death" in this circumstance is the "second death," or hell. The Bible says that God created hell (aka "the lake of fire") for Satan and his fallen angels. But it also says that unbelievers who haven't accepted Jesus as their savior are headed to the same place. Why do I think he chose that? I think it has to do with the purification of heaven. Everything in heaven must be holy and perfect and pure. There can be no sin. So, everything sinful must be separated and put somewhere. See here: https://simplechristianity.substack.com/p/why-would-a-loving-god-send-people. So, another way of saying that is that "the wages of sin is separation from God." I don't think that there is a less perfect option that could have been chosen and still satisfied God's requirements. God is holy and heaven must be holy, so the only choice is to separate everything unholy and sinful.
"I'm sure you and I agree that nobody forced God to do it this way. Why do you think He decided that the sacrifice had to be sinless?"
Anybody who is sinful has their own penalty to pay. And if the penalty for sin is death, I can't go to hell twice, once for you and once for me. I could only take your place if I wasn't already going to hell. So, the sacrifice has to be someone sinless.
"How does Jesus' sinlessness cause His death to pay for my sin? I understand that it DOES... I'm wondering about the intent behind God's decision."
I have no idea how the mechanics work and the Bible doesn't spell it out in detail. Why does God allow for this substitution? I don't know. I just know that he says that is the way it works. Evidently, the covering I receive from Jesus's death is enough to satisfy God. And who am I to argue. I know God's motive for wanting the substitution, however. God wants a relationship with us, his creations. And since all people are sinful and would thus be thrown into hell, he would lose all relationships with everybody unless he came up with a plan that satisfied his sense of justice. There is a Christian song that says that justice and mercy meet at the cross.
Thanks for asking those. I agree that there is an element of holy mystery around some of this. At some point, you're left with "because God said it is so."
In response - no arguments per se, just responding:
At the moment, I wouldn't say that everything in Heaven will be perfect. For example, we will have meaningful work to do. That suggests that our efforts will make things better. As some writer recently expressed it: Eden wasn't perfect, it was good. I'd suggest that Heaven - or, more specifically, the new Heaven and Earth - will be similar. We'll see when we get there, won't we?
My suggestion is that God's plan of substitution hits us best. As inherently selfish creatures, the self-sacrifice may be the demonstration of God's love and intentions that influences the greatest number of sinners toward repentance. I think He could have done things in an unknown, perhaps unlimited, number of ways... but that this is the way that works best.
Speculation is fun. It's not for making theology, as you suggest. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! ❤️
Thanks for the insights. I'll have to think on them.
On another note, it is interesting that we only know of Jesus for a small part of His life. Little bits until age 12, then nothing until He's 33 (right?). And even then, only for a short time.
I imagine there are many theories about where He was during all those unaccounted years. What do you think?
He's about 30 years old when he starts his ministry. He was born in about 4 BC, which I realize makes no sense. From other clues, they think he was crucified in about 33 AD. Until he's 30, I suspect he's working as a carpenter in Nazareth. That was Joseph's profession and most of the time children took on the family business, whatever that was. But that's just a guess. We really don't know.
Thanks. For some reason I thought He was 33 when he was crucified. When He first appears in the New Testament until He is crucified is how long? A few months? Crazy that in such a short time, He changed everything.
I've been thinking that the fact that we are talking about Jesus 2 thousand years later is proof that He existed, resurrected and, therefore, is who He said He was; the Christ. If he hadn't risen from the dead and shown Himself to His disciples, they would never have gone out and preached about Jesus. They were so scared post crucifixion, they would never have gone out and converted anyone. They had to have Him in all His Glory.
It's really because of the work of the Apostles, that there is Christianity today.
With no media, no printing press, no trains. It's never ceases to amaze me how they were able to do it.
It’s not fully clear how old he was. The gospels don’t say directly , so those dates are estimates based on the events described in the gospels that we have other dating evidence for. There is some evidence that he was crucified in 30 AD, too (the most likely years seem to be either 30 or 33 AD). So, 33 years old at crucifixion also works. His ministry is generally thought to have lasted a few years.
And yea, a bunch of blue collar fishermen plus the Holy Spirit changed the world. So, what’s my excuse?
Sure puts His ministry in perspective, though. Thanks for your writing. Very enjoyable, and just goes to prove my point that, the more I learn of the Bible, the less I know. Love your fancy phrase, “substitutionary atonement.” I’m going to hang onto those words.
And a thank you to all those that comment, too. I’ve enjoyed reading them. “The Chosen” sure paints him as a carpenter until “it’s time”.
Who can fathom the mind of God? How hard we humans try to put him in our logical boxes! Thank you for this piece. I am going to paraphrase it and send it in a written letter tucked in to a bible that I am giving to my best friend of over 50 years. I hope she will accept both my gift, and His!
I understand that you're saying Jesus, a sinless innocent was sacrificed for all of humanity, and that jesus is in fact God himself anyway, but doesn't that still mean that justice was not served?
Imagining another scenario that someone innocent pays for another's crimes, it's not justice. I'm not sure I can square that.
I know that perhaps it might be symbolic that a loving father would sacrifice a part of himself to support and further his children. Somewhat like how one must burn off one's deadwood to remain true. But that surely means there was no justice.
"Imagining another scenario that someone innocent pays for another's crimes, it's not justice. I'm not sure I can square that."
So, imagine that the penalty for the crime isn't death but a monetary fine. Say your son is charged with a crime, found guilty, convicted, and ordered to pay a $50,000 penalty. But your son doesn't have $50,000, so you pay the fine for him. Justice has been served. The fine was paid, but it was paid by you.
Essentially, that's what Jesus does. You're still guilty of the crime (sin). But Jesus steps in and says, "I've got this," right before the Father sends you to hell. As a human judge accepts the $50,000, the Father accepts Jesus's death in payment of your fine.
Now, here on earth, we can't and don't allow somebody to, for instance, go to jail or face the death penalty for another. But God does.
"I know that perhaps it might be symbolic that a loving father would sacrifice a part of himself to support and further his children."
So, be careful. The Father doesn't sacrifice a "part of himself." This is where we get into the doctrine of the Trinity. It's more correct to say that one of the three persons of the godhead sacrificed himself for us. See here for more on that: https://simplechristianity.substack.com/p/saint-patrick-and-the-trinity
"But that surely means there was no justice."
There is justice because God says there is justice. He's the one who needs to be satisfied and he declares it so. And because of this, I guarantee you that when you actually meet God, and we all will, you will have a sense of satisfaction that justice has indeed been served.
I’m glad you enjoyed it. If you’re new to reading the Bible, I’d suggest picking up a copy of the New Living Translation. It’s a lot easier to read and understand than other translations (more modern language, easier style). Also, I suggest starting in the book of John in the New Testament, not necessarily in Genesis. That will give you an immediate overview of Jesus’s ministry, crucifixion, etc. If you have any questions, feel free to shoot me a DM here on Substack.
Thank you for this. It greatly helped me understand things 😌
Prior to accepting the free gift, people must admit that they themselves are such vile sinners that they in fact deserve death.
Also, the Bible teaches that justice is not something that people "get." Courts don't give justice, ask any lawyer. Justice is something that people "give." How? Want justice? Live righteous. So, I say, "Know Justice, Know Peace!"
I love it! Great article 😇🙏🏼 I would only add that because of what Christ did on the cross, believers now have the authority to live out God’s justice and mercy to the world by acting like Jesus. This completely satisfies God’s attributes of mercy and justice as a witness to the world for His glory!
Substitutionary atonement never really made sense to me. "Someone has to get punished because God's pissed" is a little hard to square with the love God shows throughout the old and new testaments. Wrapping that wrath in God's sense of justice or holiness doesn't improve it. I'm guessing you've seen the Gospel in Chairs?
The original orthodox version www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8 is only about 10 minutes.
The best presentation is Brad Jersak's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_aALyEKh_A but it's 30 minutes.
I find this a very useful metaphor. The Trinity is a relationship of mutual love -- God's essence is love. I didn't always believe this. My response to "Jesus is love" signs on churches used to be, "no, Jesus is Lord". And He is. And many churches use those signs as excuses to condone sin. But they're still true: God is love. And Love is patient, and kind, and does not envy or boast, and is not proud or self-seeking or easily angered. Love keeps no record of wrongs but protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Substitutionary atonement doesn't even come close to that. It's not that it's wrong technically, it's just so incomplete.
I am in the same boat, never made sense to me. Became Orthodox and theology is so much better. I highly recommend listening to Lord of Spirits podcast where they discuss this topic from many different angles.
Interesting. Thanks for the comments.
You've identified God's character trait of perfect love, and you're spot on with that. But God also has a character trait of justice with respect to The Law. God loves you and so he shows you mercy by providing the substitutionary atonement through Jesus in order to satisfy his sense of justice. So, it's not that "Someone has to get punished because God's pissed." Someone has to get punished because someone is guilty.
In other words, God's wrath flows from his judgement, not the other way around. He's not pissed first and therefore somebody's gotta get smacked to in order that he should calm down. Rather, it's that he judges you a transgressor and therefore unfit for heaven and thus you must be deposited into the lake of fire. God's wrath is embodied in the separation of hell. To put it another way, Jesus's death isn't designed to make God less wrathful, to calm him down, to make him less pissy. Rather, it's designed that sinners can stand justified before the Law, thus satisfying God's requirement for justice and holiness. In so doing that, we also avoid God's wrath, but that's secondary, because we avoid hell altogether. To further clarify, God doesn't punish us by being "pissed" or angry at us. He punishes us with separation.
I watched the Orthodox chair video and to be honest, it didn't make much sense to me. Further, it seemed to be suggesting that everybody goes to heaven in the Orthodox world, which is definitely not Biblical. If I've misunderstood the key point of the example, I apologize. I'll admit to not being up to par on Orthodox doctrine, so perhaps I'm mis-hearing the message. I didn't bother watching the 30 minute version; perhaps it gives a more understandable version.
"Substitutionary atonement doesn't even come close to that. It's not that it's wrong technically, it's just so incomplete."
So, I have no idea what this means. Substitutionary atonement is amazingly loving and very complete. Without Jesus, we have no way to the Father. We are sinners, guilty before the Law, and would have to pay the penalty for that guilt ourselves. God loves us, but we're still guilty before the Law. But through his substitutionary atonement, the penalty is paid by him. If that's not love, I don't know what is. John 15:13 says, "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends."
Again, thanks for the comments.
The word atonement was made up when trying to translate Yom Kippur, because the English translator did not understand the word Kippur, which was originally Keffir, or something similar. The word that was created was initially At-one-ment. There is no other etiology for that word. The original Hebrew word simply means cover, wiping away. There is no substitution needed and there was no such thing as atoning. And no atheist will find it loving to punish someone for something they did not do. Christ's death has much deeper meaning than simply taking on punishment he didn't deserve. I recommend reading some church fathers to get a better understanding. Substitutionary atonement is a much later invention.
Let me key on this line: "Someone has to get punished because someone is guilty."
In the Greek myth, Pythias is guilty (his punishment is just), but his friend Damon volunteers to be killed in his place if he fails to return from seeing his family one last time. If Pythias had failed to return would King Dionysius be just in killing Damon? I think not. Guilt just can not be transferred like that, and for innocent Damon to die in place of guilty Pythias would be a profound injustice (in our eyes and God's). Were Medieval castle guards just to use whipping boys to take the punishment deserved by the prince for his transgressions? Again, I think not. Punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty can never be just, and thus how could it appease the sense of justice of a perfect God? Clearly something more is going on there, and the missing piece is love.
Our salvation is not in Christ's blood and suffering but in his obedience and love. The first Adam screwed that part up; the 2nd Adam got it right. Christ’s death is an obedient act of redemptive love, not simply a legal punishment.
Yes, the Orthodox are definitely not universalists, and that hint is the one quibble I have with Jersak's presentation. "It is appointed once for man to die and then the judgement."
BTW: Please don't ever take anything I write personally. You and I are debating really fine points of theology here, but I suspect we probably agree on 95%. We're not quite in "how many angels dance on the head of a pin?" territory, but we're close. Calvin and Luther and Wesley and many others have spilled lots of ink over issues like this largely to no avail. In the end, I'm perfectly content with the Catholic/Orthodox teaching that Christ's atonement is a "mystery"; C.S. Lewis was also content with this. I don't need anything beyond that, and I think going beyond that causes problems.
"Guilt just can not be transferred like that"
Maybe if you or I were running the universe it would not work that way. But in God's universe, apparently, it does. I can only say that God seems to be satisfied with that transference of guilt.
"Punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty can never be just"
Let's be clear that God doesn't just punish person X for the crimes of person Y, selecting X at random. And, specifically, that isn't what happened in this case. Rather, Jesus made a voluntary sacrifice of himself in order that he could satisfy the punishment required of God's sense of justice for everyone else. Go back to John 15:13: "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends." The person has to willingly say, "I'll pay the price for another." And, the sacrifice must be acceptable to God. I can't die for your sins because I'm a sinner also and I have my own debt to pay.
"Our salvation is not in Christ's blood and suffering but in his obedience and love. The first Adam screwed that part up; the 2nd Adam got it right. Christ’s death is an obedient act of redemptive love, not simply a legal punishment."
Our salvation is certainly achieved through Christ's blood. The Bible makes that very clear. His obedience and love were important factors in both his ability and desire to be the perfect sacrifice in our place, but we're not saved "by Christ's obedience" or saved "by his love." His obedience led him to the cross. If he hadn't been obedient, that would be sin, and he had to be sinless. His love caused him to leave heaven and live within a broken creation. If he hadn't loved us, there would have been no motivation to sacrifice himself for our sake. Think through the opposite scenario. Christ could have been obedient and stayed in heaven as part of the godhead (where "obedience" sort of loses its meaning), loving humanity, but watching us go to our doom. But that would not have saved us.
There is certainly some mystery surrounding the mechanics of this transaction or why God chose to do it this way. I can't tell you what the "rules" are for all such transactions as the Bible doesn't say and I suspect this is the first, last, and only such transaction that will ever take place in this way. I also can't peer into the mind of God and say that there weren't other things that might have satisfied both his sense of justice and mercy. But the Bible is pretty clear that this was the transaction that took place.
I'd note that "suffering" seems to be a particular fixation with Catholicism, but there's not much to back it up. While Christ certainly did suffer (he was basically tortured and then given over to one of the most diabolical methods of death imaginable), the Bible doesn't say that we're justified by his being roughed up and flogged. And if you look at the Old Testament, where the Jewish sacrificial system was a foreshadowing of what had to happen with Christ, there are no instructions in Exodus to torture the animals before slaughtering them on the alter. But there are instructions for the animals to be without blemish, again, foreshadowing the requirement for Christ to be sinless.
Yes, good call on the "one and done."
I think Jesus had to be sacrificed, not merely die. That is, when you realize that the whole Jewish sacrificial system was a foreshadowing of what ultimately had to happen with Jesus, nobody would have thought that if you allowed your bull to die of old age in the field that you were cleansed. It's the same with Jesus. But I don't think he necessarily had to suffer in a human sense. That is, it isn't clear to me that the scourging that he received at the hand of the Romans was specifically necessary for our redemption. He certainly suffered in a spiritual sense, being utterly cut off from God, severing that perfect connection with the Father severed for those three days.
Anyway, great comments.
I appreciate the article, David. I wouldn't disagree with it, in general.
At the same time, my training forces me to look for assumptions. When there's an assumption, I typically ask "why is that?" Here are two examples... if you would, I'd love to read a follow-up:
"Because the wages of sin is death and because sinners are guilty, somebody has to die in order to satisfy God’s perfect sense of justice. If that doesn’t happen, then God makes a mockery of his Law..."
Who decided that the wages of sin is death? God did, of course. Why do you think He created that law? Could He have decided otherwise? If so, why do you think He chose that option, rather than a less perfect one?
"In particular, it had to be somebody who was sinless, otherwise their death would just pay for their own sin."
I'm sure you and I agree that nobody forced God to do it this way. Why do you think He decided that the sacrifice had to be sinless? How does Jesus' sinlessness cause His death to pay for my sin? I understand that it DOES... I'm wondering about the intent behind God's decision.
Thanks for your consideration. Have a great day! 😎
Great questions. I'll try to answer as best I can. That said, you're asking me why God made the choices he did, so I'm definitely not qualified to speak for him.
"Who decided that the wages of sin is death? God did, of course. Why do you think He created that law? Could He have decided otherwise? If so, why do you think He chose that option, rather than a less perfect one?"
Well, "death" in this circumstance is the "second death," or hell. The Bible says that God created hell (aka "the lake of fire") for Satan and his fallen angels. But it also says that unbelievers who haven't accepted Jesus as their savior are headed to the same place. Why do I think he chose that? I think it has to do with the purification of heaven. Everything in heaven must be holy and perfect and pure. There can be no sin. So, everything sinful must be separated and put somewhere. See here: https://simplechristianity.substack.com/p/why-would-a-loving-god-send-people. So, another way of saying that is that "the wages of sin is separation from God." I don't think that there is a less perfect option that could have been chosen and still satisfied God's requirements. God is holy and heaven must be holy, so the only choice is to separate everything unholy and sinful.
"I'm sure you and I agree that nobody forced God to do it this way. Why do you think He decided that the sacrifice had to be sinless?"
Anybody who is sinful has their own penalty to pay. And if the penalty for sin is death, I can't go to hell twice, once for you and once for me. I could only take your place if I wasn't already going to hell. So, the sacrifice has to be someone sinless.
"How does Jesus' sinlessness cause His death to pay for my sin? I understand that it DOES... I'm wondering about the intent behind God's decision."
I have no idea how the mechanics work and the Bible doesn't spell it out in detail. Why does God allow for this substitution? I don't know. I just know that he says that is the way it works. Evidently, the covering I receive from Jesus's death is enough to satisfy God. And who am I to argue. I know God's motive for wanting the substitution, however. God wants a relationship with us, his creations. And since all people are sinful and would thus be thrown into hell, he would lose all relationships with everybody unless he came up with a plan that satisfied his sense of justice. There is a Christian song that says that justice and mercy meet at the cross.
Thanks for asking those. I agree that there is an element of holy mystery around some of this. At some point, you're left with "because God said it is so."
Most excellent!
In response - no arguments per se, just responding:
At the moment, I wouldn't say that everything in Heaven will be perfect. For example, we will have meaningful work to do. That suggests that our efforts will make things better. As some writer recently expressed it: Eden wasn't perfect, it was good. I'd suggest that Heaven - or, more specifically, the new Heaven and Earth - will be similar. We'll see when we get there, won't we?
My suggestion is that God's plan of substitution hits us best. As inherently selfish creatures, the self-sacrifice may be the demonstration of God's love and intentions that influences the greatest number of sinners toward repentance. I think He could have done things in an unknown, perhaps unlimited, number of ways... but that this is the way that works best.
Speculation is fun. It's not for making theology, as you suggest. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! ❤️
"We'll see when we get there, won't we?"
Indeed. :-)
Thank you for this David. Such a perfect explanation. How could anyone take issue with it?
Thanks for the insights. I'll have to think on them.
On another note, it is interesting that we only know of Jesus for a small part of His life. Little bits until age 12, then nothing until He's 33 (right?). And even then, only for a short time.
I imagine there are many theories about where He was during all those unaccounted years. What do you think?
He's about 30 years old when he starts his ministry. He was born in about 4 BC, which I realize makes no sense. From other clues, they think he was crucified in about 33 AD. Until he's 30, I suspect he's working as a carpenter in Nazareth. That was Joseph's profession and most of the time children took on the family business, whatever that was. But that's just a guess. We really don't know.
Thanks. For some reason I thought He was 33 when he was crucified. When He first appears in the New Testament until He is crucified is how long? A few months? Crazy that in such a short time, He changed everything.
I've been thinking that the fact that we are talking about Jesus 2 thousand years later is proof that He existed, resurrected and, therefore, is who He said He was; the Christ. If he hadn't risen from the dead and shown Himself to His disciples, they would never have gone out and preached about Jesus. They were so scared post crucifixion, they would never have gone out and converted anyone. They had to have Him in all His Glory.
It's really because of the work of the Apostles, that there is Christianity today.
With no media, no printing press, no trains. It's never ceases to amaze me how they were able to do it.
It’s not fully clear how old he was. The gospels don’t say directly , so those dates are estimates based on the events described in the gospels that we have other dating evidence for. There is some evidence that he was crucified in 30 AD, too (the most likely years seem to be either 30 or 33 AD). So, 33 years old at crucifixion also works. His ministry is generally thought to have lasted a few years.
And yea, a bunch of blue collar fishermen plus the Holy Spirit changed the world. So, what’s my excuse?
Sure puts His ministry in perspective, though. Thanks for your writing. Very enjoyable, and just goes to prove my point that, the more I learn of the Bible, the less I know. Love your fancy phrase, “substitutionary atonement.” I’m going to hang onto those words.
And a thank you to all those that comment, too. I’ve enjoyed reading them. “The Chosen” sure paints him as a carpenter until “it’s time”.
Thanks for the kind words. Yea, I don't think we know what he was really doing, so everybody just defaults to carpenter. Someday, I hope to ask him.
I meant to say they had to have seen Him.
Who can fathom the mind of God? How hard we humans try to put him in our logical boxes! Thank you for this piece. I am going to paraphrase it and send it in a written letter tucked in to a bible that I am giving to my best friend of over 50 years. I hope she will accept both my gift, and His!
I understand that you're saying Jesus, a sinless innocent was sacrificed for all of humanity, and that jesus is in fact God himself anyway, but doesn't that still mean that justice was not served?
Imagining another scenario that someone innocent pays for another's crimes, it's not justice. I'm not sure I can square that.
I know that perhaps it might be symbolic that a loving father would sacrifice a part of himself to support and further his children. Somewhat like how one must burn off one's deadwood to remain true. But that surely means there was no justice.
Great questions.
"Imagining another scenario that someone innocent pays for another's crimes, it's not justice. I'm not sure I can square that."
So, imagine that the penalty for the crime isn't death but a monetary fine. Say your son is charged with a crime, found guilty, convicted, and ordered to pay a $50,000 penalty. But your son doesn't have $50,000, so you pay the fine for him. Justice has been served. The fine was paid, but it was paid by you.
Essentially, that's what Jesus does. You're still guilty of the crime (sin). But Jesus steps in and says, "I've got this," right before the Father sends you to hell. As a human judge accepts the $50,000, the Father accepts Jesus's death in payment of your fine.
Now, here on earth, we can't and don't allow somebody to, for instance, go to jail or face the death penalty for another. But God does.
"I know that perhaps it might be symbolic that a loving father would sacrifice a part of himself to support and further his children."
So, be careful. The Father doesn't sacrifice a "part of himself." This is where we get into the doctrine of the Trinity. It's more correct to say that one of the three persons of the godhead sacrificed himself for us. See here for more on that: https://simplechristianity.substack.com/p/saint-patrick-and-the-trinity
"But that surely means there was no justice."
There is justice because God says there is justice. He's the one who needs to be satisfied and he declares it so. And because of this, I guarantee you that when you actually meet God, and we all will, you will have a sense of satisfaction that justice has indeed been served.
Thanks for asking those.
Thank you for your detailed response.
I really enjoyed reading your substack on St. Patrick and the trinity. I have many more questions now but I feel I'm getting closer to truth.
I bought a copy of the bible to read over Christmas so once I get back to England I hope to learn more.
I look forward to reading more of what you have to say.
Thank you
I’m glad you enjoyed it. If you’re new to reading the Bible, I’d suggest picking up a copy of the New Living Translation. It’s a lot easier to read and understand than other translations (more modern language, easier style). Also, I suggest starting in the book of John in the New Testament, not necessarily in Genesis. That will give you an immediate overview of Jesus’s ministry, crucifixion, etc. If you have any questions, feel free to shoot me a DM here on Substack.
Thank you for responding to readers’ questions. I learn even more as I read through.
I also did. Great discussion!