HQ

Supposedly, Christianity will go away. We will evolve and move on. Infuriatingly for some, it's not going away that easily. Today, we remember a day when Jesus was supposed to go away. But, things did not go as planned.  Crucifixions were supposed to be smooth and orderly. Everyone played their part to make sure the punishment was carried out with maximum efficiency and elegance. But this was no ordinary crucifixion. Things had already been going off the rails. Pilate couldn't find a crime but gave in to the crowd's call for Jesus to be crucified. Jesus himself was not displaying the normal characteristics of the guilty. But surely the day itself would go without a hitch and everyone could put this sorry episode behind them. The first sign that things were not going to be normal appeared when Jesus had his cross taken away and placed upon the shoulders of Simon of Cyrene. Now the criminal marched without his cross. No one knows why this happened, but we know...

Abbot Tryphon argues that the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement is heresy . Tryphon calls the view "pagan" view in which "we are forced to view our God as some sort of angry deity needing to be appeased by a blood sacrifice." Tryphon's main argument is that if we accept the penal substitutionary view, then we are forced to accept two consequences, both of which are false: The major problem with this teaching can be seen in the fact that had Christ died for our sins against God the Father, thus causing a division of God, with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity laid waste, with God pitted against God. This heretical doctrine divides God by implying that Christ isn’t fully God. It also suggests that there is a higher force than God, thus making God Himself ruled by a “higher force”. In other words, God has no choice but to punish. By this notion, justice forces God to respond to our sin with His wrath, with love becoming secondary. First, Tryphon...

The theory of penal substitutionary atonement states that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, took the punishment that we deserve. Some suggest that if Christ takes the punishment we deserve, then he must take the same  (or identical) punishment we deserve. This thought generates an objection to the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement. The argument is something like: If we deserve eternity in hell, then, in order to take our punishment, Christ must spend eternity in Hell.  Christ does not spend eternity in Hell.  Therefore, the penal substitutionary atonement theory is false.  There is good reason to reject this argument. The first thing to notice is that this argument rests upon interpreting "Christ takes the punishment we deserve" as "Christ takes the punishment identical to the punishment given to sinful human beings who reject Christ." But why accept (i) that the punishment must be identical and (ii) that the punishment must be ide...

On the cross, the Messiah cries, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46b). His words are a quotation of David's prophetic psalm, psalm 22. But what can Jesus possibly mean? How could the Son be forsaken by the Father? How do we explain the Messiah's question? Surely he of all people knows why he is on the cross. The answer lies in an understanding of Psalm 22. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the first verse, David gives the Messiah his script. His cry is a forlorn cry of dereliction: My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning. My God, I cry by day, but You do not answer and by night, but I have no rest. In the psalm's context, the opening words comprise a complaint: God has forsaken the Messiah and abandoned him in his hour of terrible need. This raises all sorts of difficult questions: Can the Son be forsaken by the Father without damage...

Here is a common argument against the penal substitutionary view of the atonement: The penal substitutionary view of the atonement entails a retributive view of punishment, but retribution is insufficient moral justification for punishment. Therefore, the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement is false. In response, I shall argue that the retributive justification of punishment is well supported by the Bible and by commonly held intuitions about meritorious actions. The penal substitution view of the atonement holds that sinful human beings deserve divine punishment and that Jesus Christ was punished in their place. According to this view, punishment is deserved by a sinner but can be absorbed by someone other than the person who has committed the sin: The Father, because of his love for human beings, sent his Son (who offered himself willingly and gladly) to satisfy God’s justice, so that Christ took the place of sinners. The punishment and penalty we deserve was laid o...

I remember taking part in a massive protest at my boarding school. Almost all of us refused to eat in the school canteen. It worked - we won. Our cause? To change the catering company of the school. That was it. We did not defeat communism, institute civil rights, or remove a dictator. We merely changed our menu (and, as far as I can recall, not by much). Many people feel like they should have a big cause, some great evil to overturn, but can't seem to find one. So they choose something that isn't really a cause at all. They protest over nothing. Or, finding no evil of particular interest, they find a great good and call it evil. Not all causes are pseudo-causes, but at least some are. The trouble is that we all have a great evil and it is generally not some system outside, but one right here... on the inside. This was what Jesus recognized in the Pharisees - though they wanted to live righteous lives, they had rotten hearts. The same is true with us - we're rotte...

And I heard the angel of the waters saying, “Righteous are You, who are and who were, O Holy One, because You judged these things; for they poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and You have given them blood to drink. They deserve it.” And I heard the altar saying, “Yes, O Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments.” In Revelation 16:4-7, John records the proclamation of the angel who affirms the just punishment of those who “poured out the blood of saints and prophets” (v. 6). The angel tells us that the persecutors of God’s people deserve their punishment and that punishment displays the nature of God: “Righteous are you…because you judged these things; for they poured out the blood of the saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink. They deserve it” (vs. 5b-6). As Mounce comments, “In a moral universe God must of necessity oppose evil… Because they had poured out the blood of the saints, God has given them blood to drink.” [1] The s...

Paul commences his second letter to the church at Thessalonica with an encouragement for those experiencing affliction. Paul tells his readers that it is just for God to repay in kind those who afflict them. [1] He tells the Thessalonians that God will “repay with affliction” those who afflict his reader (2 Thess 1:3-9). The term, ‘repay’ (ἀνταποδοῦναι), means ‘to give back’ or ‘return’ what is due. [2] In this case, those who afflict God’s people will be repaid with affliction from God. Paul goes on to tell his reader that such a repayment is retributive : God will deal out “retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power” (2 Thess 8-9). Retribution, in this case, is not abstracted from God’s wrath. The term, ‘retribution’ (ἐκδίκησιν), is used for 'vengeance,' or 'punishment' and is uniquely the...

"Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man" (Genesis 9:6)  Genesis 9:6 is a standard text used to support the principle of lex talionis (a life for a life). In this case, those who murder shall be killed. Although there is some debate over whether the text indicates that the one who kills is man or God, the principle is clear: those who commit murder deserve death. As Bruce Waltke points out, such a payment is a demand of God: “This is an obligation, not an option… Blood shed through homicide must be dealt with.” [1] Waltke argues that the obligation to punish murderers carries through to the prescriptions for atoning sacrifices in the Old Testament: “If the blood is not compensated by capital punishment or atoned for, it brings the Lord’s judgment on the land (Deut 19:13; 2 Sam 21:1; 1 Kings 2:9, 31-33).” [2] The central demand God makes is for lifeblood and comes in the context of a dietary restriction, namel...