What
is wrong with the Substitutionary theory of the Atonement
By Ron
Corson
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 Israel through the New Testament, God is
prophetically
spoken of as righteous. God by His righteousness provided to mankind
principles
which would aid man in his own quest to do what is right. So early on
in the
history of Israel we find the following guide to righteous
living.
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 3:25 TLB)
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 3:25 NIV)
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 Israel:
"I
sent plagues among you as I did to Egypt. I killed your young men with the sword,
along with
your captured horses. I filled your nostrils with the stench of your
camps, yet
you have not returned to me," declares the LORD. (Amos 4:10)
The plagues here were not derived
from God,
but were actions that other nations carried out upon Israel, God did not come down with a sword and kill
the young
men and their horses. These are viewed as actions of God because God is
the
ultimate ruler of all, if something happens
it is
because He allowed it to happen. At any time He could intervene but
particularly in the Old Testament if God does not intervene He is
viewed as
sending the tragedy. It is much the same in the verses from Isaiah.
What we see
in these verses is God allowing sinful men to attack and kill the
Righteous
One. It was very true that we viewed Him as stricken by God, it was
indeed the
transgressions of people that afflicted him. For it was people who
despised
him, rejected him and cut him off from the land of the living.
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 21:23)
it was for his great guilt that he has brought upon himself. The
concept that
one could be wrongly hung is not addressed, even though later in the
Old
Testament books many times the suggestion is made that innocent people
have
been killed and that such an action is an offense against God. What
become
clear as we study Christ's life and death is the nearly total lack of
justice involved. He was brought up on
false charges, false
witnesses were obtained to lie about Him, even then the court could not
find
him guilty so He was flogged and finally Pilate was persuaded by a mob
to
crucify Christ. Some in the past have said that "justice and mercy
kissed
at the cross". One would really have to wonder about their concept of
justice. What would be far more accurate would be to say that rebellion
and
love met at the cross, and love was not diminished. Love even when put
at the
mercy of rebellion still loved those who were rebelling. The
demonstration which proved that God is indeed love. That God can
and
does forgive sin, and with the resurrection that death is not obstacle
to God.
As the Paul says:
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 6:14)
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 11:25)
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 8:44)
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 5:19-21)
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 18:32). The obvious consequence of not choosing
life is the
cessation of life, death. Certainly this can be viewed as a punishment
but it
is also the consequence of rejecting the gift of life.
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 3:23,
Psalms 104:35; 37:20, Rev. 19:20; 21:8). In Revelation this is referred
to as
the Second death. A death from which there is never a resurrection as
opposed
to the righteous who are resurrected at the second coming. Sin here on
earth
leads to pain misery and death. After the second coming of Christ sin
is the
reason for the unrepentant eternal loss of life the second death.
However one
views the eschatology of this time period, it appears that all will be
resurrected to stand before the Judgment seat of God and receive the
rewards of
what they have done in this life (2 Corinthians 5:10). There are only
two
choices, to have trusted God and accept the gift of life or to have
rejected
God and reject his gift of life. As Daniel says some will rise to
eternal life
and some to destruction (Dan 12:2).
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 (Rev 6:16). The concept of God as a consuming fire is
found in
the Old Testament as well as in the book of Hebrews (Isaiah 33:14
; Hebrews 12:29). Under such
conditions the eternal destruction of the wicked is as much for the
wicked as
for the righteous. The wicked have chosen against life, they have
chosen death
and their desire is fulfilled. The righteous have chosen life and their
desire
is fulfilled. Those who choose God choose life, the right choice,
choosing allegiance to God is the process where we are proclaimed
righteous.
This
is his command: to give our allegiance to his Son Jesus Christ and love
one
another as he commanded. (1 John 3:23 New English Bible)
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 November 22, 2001 in an article by
Clifford Goldstein:
"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 murderer 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's 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 Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the
promise,
without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you
who once
were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For
he
himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the
barrier,
the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with
its
commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one
new man
out of the two, thus making peace, 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.
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)..." (Nov. 26, 2001 Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide).
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 1:18)
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 3:25 and Ephesians 5:2
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 3:25)
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 1:18)
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 1:24)
He was
delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our
justification. (Rom 4:25)
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 8:32)
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 18:36 KJV)
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 2:23)
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
3:13)
The
God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead-- whom you had killed by
hanging
him on a tree.(Acts 5:30)
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 7:52)
"We
are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree,
(Acts10:39)
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 2:14-15)
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 16:21)
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.(Rev 20:14)
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. (Rev 2:11)
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 10:28)
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 15:34)
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 10:17-18).
That is the reconciliation of God, the lengths to call people back to
trust in
God. The mercy of love which is free to forgive,
the justice
which is the return to harmony with our Creator.
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 Temple services. It is assumed that sin was
confessed upon
the sacrifice, the blood then transferred the sin into the holy place
of the
temple, then on the day of Atonement the
sin is
removed from the temple and carried to the scapegoat for removal. (See Appendix 3)
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. 9:11-28).
It is God's gracious pardon to sinful men and is effected
through Christ and through faith in him (Acts 2:38; 5:31;
10:43; 13:38;
26:18: Eph. 4:32; col. 1:9-14). In divine forgiveness the guilt and
debt of sin
are canceled, and repentant man is received back into fellowship with
the
Father". (The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible pages 306-7)
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 Israel on the day of
Atonement. For the scapegoat was a promise of what
God would do to their sins,
and Christ on the cross was a dramatic revelation of the character of
forgiveness.
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 5:21)
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 unless 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 Christian Churches attempts to understand
Christ’s
Atonement and Sacrifice. The following theories are listed in
chronological
order. However multiple theories may exist concurrently.
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 Adams sin) so Christ
recapitulated in Himself all the dispersed
peoples dating back to Adam, all tongues and the whole race of mankind,
along
with Adam himself. His conclusion is that humanity which was seminally
present
in Adam has been given the opportunity of making a new start in Christ,
the
second Adam, through incorporation in his mystical body. The original
Adam by
disobedience introduced the principle of sin and death, but Christ by
His
obedience has reintroduced the principle of life and immortality.
Because He is
identified with the human race at every phase of it existence, He
restores fellowship
with God to all. To Irenaeus it is obedience that God requires, and in
order to
exhibit such obedience, Christ had to live His life through all its
stages, not
excluding death itself.
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 Kingdom of Heaven that none but a person
reaching to
God can be the medium of restoring peace. Such an efficient mediator is
found
in Christ alone. Through whose atoning death the price of man’s
forgiveness is
paid and a way of salvation made open. Calvin considers the Atonement
not as a
meritorious satisfaction accepted as a substitute for punishment, but
as the
vicarious endurance by Christ of that punishment itself. Calvin denies
that God
was ever hostile to Christ or angry with Him, yet in His Divine
providence He
suffered His Son to go through the experience of those against whom God
is thus
hostile. In His own consciousness, Christ bore the weight of the Divine
anger,
was smitten and afflicted, and experienced all the signs of an angry
and
avenging God.
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. New York 1960
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 Salvation Mountain View, CA; Pacific Press, 1980 pp.25, 26)
…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.
Rev
3:18 (NIV)
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, 6:11,7:9,7:13-14,) unfortunately many people are missing
the clear
picture of the Bible in order to create a complex legal fiction.
Let us try for a moment to look at
these
verses used above in a slightly different light. The
light of
forgiveness. Isa 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together," says
the LORD. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as
snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. (NIV)
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. 4:20,
26: I Kings 8:30, 34: Ps. 86:5: 103:3: Jer.
31:34).
The root 3722 kaphar (kaw-far')
(cover) which is used to express the idea of atonement or propitiation,
in some
cases means "forgive" (Ps. 65:3; 78:38;79:9; Isa.
6:7; 22:14; Jer. 18:23; Ezek. 16:63). The
root 4229 machah (maw-khaw')
signifies that
sins may be wiped or blotted out (Neh. 4:5;
Ps. 51:1;
109:14; Isa. 43:25; 44:22; Jer.
18:23). The verb 3680 kacah
(kaw-saw') suggests that sins may be
covered or concealed (Neh. 4:5; Ps. 32:1;
85:3). The root 5375 nasa'
(naw-saw')
(lift up,
take away)
may also mean "forgive" (Gen. 50:17;Ex. 10:17; 32:32; 34:7; Ps. 32:5; 85:3). God forgives
sin, but
this presupposes repentance and prayer on the part of the sinner
(Ps.51:1-17)."
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. 9:11-28). It is God’s gracious pardon to sinful
men and is
effected through Christ and through faith in
him (Acts
2:38; 5:31;
10:43; 13:38;
26:18: Eph. 4:32; col. 1:9-14). In divine forgiveness the guilt and
debt of sin
are canceled, and repentant man is received back into fellowship with
the
Father. " (The New Westminster Dictionary
of the
Bible_ pages 306-7)
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."( Col 1:21-23 NIV)
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 Israel dealt with. "And if we are careful to obey
all
this law before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us,
that will be our righteousness."(Deut 6:25 NIV) To a righteousness that is based upon
who God
is. Jeremiah prophesied of that day; "In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by
which it
will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.'" ( Jer 33:16 NIV) And Paul explained it
further;
"It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for
us
wisdom from God-- that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast
in the
Lord."' ( 1 Cor
1:30-31 NIV)
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 2:16
NIV)
"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 5:17).
To accept forgiveness the person must acknowledge that they have been
in
rebellion against the ways of God, they are sinners. As Paul wrote:
"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 Israel’s sanctuary service. On the Day of Atonement
the high
priest cleansed the sanctuary with the atoning blood of the Lord’s
goat. Only
after this atonement was fully completed did the ritual involving Azazel, the goat that symbolized Satan, begin
(see chapter
23). Laying his hands on its head, the high priest confessed ‘"all the
iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning
all their
sins, putting them on the head of the goat’" (Lev 16:21). And the scapegoat was sent into the
wilderness,
‘"an uninhabited land’" (Lev. 16:22).
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 Israel to recognize a demon whose claims on the
people were
to be met by the bribe of a sin-laden goat. 4. The
most probable rendering of Azazel is
"complete
sending away," i.e., solitude. The rendering then would be "the one
for Jehovah , and the other for the utter
removal" (page 111)
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 Geneva Bible Notes
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 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward
him and
said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world
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 9:26
Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of
the
world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to
do away
with sin by the sacrifice of himself
1 Pet 2:24
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.
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 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for
us, so that
in him we might become the righteousness of God. (All above from NIV)
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 16:20)
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 Most
Holy Place, Tent of Meeting and the Altar, Lev 16:20
"When
Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting and the altar, he shall
bring
forward the live
goat. (NIV) later we see the atonement continues
Lev 16:24 He shall bathe himself with water in a holy
place and
put on his regular garments. Then he shall come out and sacrifice the
burnt
offering for himself and the burnt offering for the people, to make
atonement
for himself and for the people. (NIV))
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 16:30 because on this day
atonement will
be made for you, to cleanse you.
Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins. (NIV)
(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 Israel. But as was pointed out above there is not
one
indication in the Bible that Satan in any way carries away any sin.
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 Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man
is to
take a lamb for his family, one for each household. Exod
12:5 The animals you choose must be
year-old males
without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats.
(NIV) This
makes such verses as John 1:29 far more clear: The next day John saw
Jesus
coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the
sin
of the world! (NIV)
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 Israel and Ugarit is the yearly ritual known as the sending
out of the
'scapegoats,' one for god and one for a demon. The Biblical text which
relates
this procedure is Lev. 16:1-34. In this text a goat is sent into the
wilderness
for Azazel (a demon) and one is sent into
the
wilderness for Yahweh. This rite is known as a
'eliminatory' rite; that is, a contagion (in this case communal sin) is
placed
on the head of the goat and it is sent away. In this way it was
believed that
(magically) the sinful material was removed from the community."
"KTU (Keilalphabetische
Texte aus Ugarit), the standard collection of the Ugaritic
texts) relates the same procedure at Ugarit' with one notable difference--at Ugarit a woman priest was involved in the rite as
well."
(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 Israel they were a people coming out of 400 years
of slavery
in a foreign land. The only problem comes when the previous pagan
implications
are adopted. God had no intention of having His people sacrifice to
devils or
goat demons in fact in Lev 17 He forbids such things. Lev 17:7 They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices
to the
goat idols to whom they prostitute themselves. This is to be a lasting
ordinance for them and for the generations to come.' (NIV) (Some
versions read
demons or saytres instead of goat idols.)
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. 21:42, Mrk
9:12 1 Peter. 2:4 6 Acts 3:15
2 Mrk 15:14,
Acts 8:33 7 "Love that will not let me go" by Steve
Camp and Rob Frazier 3 Ps. 22:1, Mrk. 15:34 8 Psalms 22:24
4 Deut. 21:23, Gal 3:13
9 Psalms 22:31 5 Ps. 22:4-5 10 Larry Norman "Sweet song of
salvation"
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 Rome by the Jewish authorities might well result
in his
recall. So to protect his own interests and placate the priests and the
people,
he released the insurrectionist and murderer Barabbas
and ordered Jesus flogged.
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," Arizona Medicine
22, no. 3 [March 1965]: 185)
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
Roman Empire in AD 337, out of veneration for Jesus
Christ, the
most famous victim of crucifixion. Punishment: There were
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 Persia, crucified 3,000 political opponents in Babylon; in 88 BC Alexander Jannaeus,
the Judaean king and high priest,
crucified 800
Pharisaic opponents; and in about AD 32 Pontius Pilate had Jesus of
Nazareth
put to death by crucifixion.
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 Mount Calvary, or Golgotha; one Simon of Cyrene
was
allowed to aid him in carrying the cross. At the place of execution he
was
stripped and then nailed to the cross, at least nailed by his hands;
and above
him at the top of the cross was placed the condemnatory inscription
stating his
crime of professing to be King of the Jews. (The Gospels differ
slightly in the
wording but agree that the inscription was in "Hebrew," or Aramaic,
as well as Latin and Greek.) On the cross Jesus hung for three hours of
agony.
The soldiers divided his garments and cast lots for his seamless robe;
various
onlookers taunted him. Crucified on either side of Jesus were two
convicted
thieves, whom the soldiers dispatched at eventide by breaking their
legs. The
soldiers found Jesus already dead; but, to be certain, one of them
drove a
spear into his side, from which poured blood and water. He was taken
down
before sunset (in deference to Jewish custom) and buried in a rock-hewn
tomb." ( Philip W. Goetz, "Crucifixion"
Encyclopaedia Britannica: Chicago, 1988 ed.
Vol. 3,
p. 762)
