For a worthy victory, Jesus needed a real enemy of daunting might and jurisdiction as suitable foil for displaying God’s crowning virtues so as to win our steadfast love and loyalty.

“…[B]ut this is your hour and the jurisdiction of darkness.” (Luke 22:53b)

The Lord Jesus does not minimize in the least the actual jurisdiction (exousia—authority, rights) of darkness or of Satan. Indeed, God’s mightiest work is that he “rescues us out of the jurisdiction of darkness and transports us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we are having liberation, the release of sins.” (Col. 1:13-14)

To be sure, it was Satan’s jurisdiction that surreptitiously apprehended, falsely accused, roundly condemned, and unlawfully crucified the Lord, yet God’s superior jurisdiction that reversed the wicked sentence by resurrection to glory with “all jurisdiction in heaven and on the earth.” (Matt. 28:18) For Jesus had declared, “Now is the judging of this world, Now shall the Chief of this world be cast out. And I, if I should be exalted out of the earth, shall be drawing all to myself.” (John 12:31-32) For he, too, conquered because he “love[d] not [his] soul until death” (Rev. 12:11), but “surrendered to Him Who is judging justly” (1Pet. 2:23), knowing full well the glorious outcome would be life forevermore.

For a real victory, Jesus needed a real enemy of daunting might and jurisdiction as suitable foil for displaying God’s crowning virtues so as to win our love and loyalty. [10/5/11]

Any talk of the “sinful” or “sinless” nature of Christ is needlessly misdirected since neither ascription can be found in Scripture. However, it is certain that the Son of God did take on mortal flesh. Such flesh—the flesh derived from Adam, without access to the Tree of Life—was by no means inherently immortal even during Adam’s original innocence. It was, accordingly, death that “passed on” (dielthen) by human generation, not sin (Romans 5:12). “Original sin” is a ruse and a hoax. Nevertheless, residual mortality is attended by its own evils, most notably, temptation. It was precisely Jesus’ mission to take the common human legacy of mortal flesh and to return it to its pristine state—nay, to surpass that state and bring all his believing seed along with him in his own transcendent salvation. He took the common lot and “improved” it by ever resisting temptation until, via the gross injustice of the cross, he won God’s just restitution of extraordinary exaltation and immortality. Had he not assumed mortal flesh just like ours—exclusive of sin!—he could assuredly not have “achieved” or “won” anything worthwhile for the salvation of other humans. His was a mighty auspicious context of faithfulness through every contingency allowed, indeed designedly intended by God, to attain the most glorious outcome possible for all concerned.

The basic issue, therefore, is not that concerning a ‘sinless versus sinful nature‘ at all; that’s a false dilemma. Much rather, it’s whether Christ remained unswervingly sinless despite his mortal condition shared with sinners who most certainly could not stay sinless or regain sinlessness by their own feckless, fretful, feverish devices, sound, and fury. [10/7/11]

In manifest irony, the very event that proved beyond doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed Israel’s long-awaited Messiah, with divine authority to avenge all injustices against them, is the identical event that rescued him from their aggravated injustice against him—his resurrection from the dead! On the strength of such a stunning reversal, God declares mercy to all and graciousness to all who believe! [10/12/11]]

To assert that 2 Cor. 5:21 has any bearing on the doctrine of the Atonement but yet deny that the host of passages in Leviticus that translate “sin” as “sin offering” (clearly a matter of atonement!) have any bearing on this passage of Paul’s is transparently to indulge in special pleading. An impartial exegetical examination will confirm a direct and most illuminating relevance. [10/27/11]

Rachel Joy Scott as “Sacrificial Lamb”

Rachel Joy Scott sacrificed herself—an innocent, good (even when her five “good” friends were not, and abandoned her), forgiving, kind, spotless virgin (decisively giving up her boyfriend and giving up the hope of marriage) lamb (“rachel” in Hebrew) to become a sin-offering (αμαρτια) as a protection, shelter, or shield (ιλαστηριον—“propitiatory shelter,” “mercy-seat“) concerning the sins or offenses of her high school (particularly bullying). Not only that, but also concerning the sins of her parents in divorcing.  Rachel’s willing, voluntary self-sacrifice in accordance with God’s desire, brought the overcompensation of God’s graciousness to her whole family, giving back to her father Darrell a vast ministry of salvation in high schools across the nation, along with her mother Beth (plus both of her parents’ new spouses), as well as her sisters and brothers.

Rachel Joy Scott, by her heroic self-sacrifice, also delivered Columbine High School from a manifold worse devastation than it did suffer in fact.  Bombs placed in the cafeteria refused to detonate, thus sparing hundreds of lives!  Only twelve students (“disciples”) and one teacher (“master”) died…although many more were wounded.

And God was pleased, well-pleased, propitious, gracious, and thousands more have been saved across the nation and beyond, as a consequence.  [4/21/06—the 7th anniversary of the Columbine massacre; 12/31/25]

God, throughout the Old Covenant with Israel, required that the regular sin-offerings employ a flawless lamb (a virgin animal), white (“without spot”).   Why?  Obviously, to depict sinlessness.  That being the case, the offering portrayed a sin against the creature itself—the harmless, amenable animal.  This ritual act, in effect, depicted wrong or injustice, per se.  In this precise way, the sin-offering (αμαρτια) truly did depict a sin (αμαρτια).

Thus did the sinless sacrificial victim bear “the string of sins,” in the words of Rachel Scott, Columbine High School martyr, leading up to its slaughter and death, by accepting all these injustices without complaint and without self-defense, vengeance, or retaliation.

Jesus had the right from his Father to not bear those brutal injustices—no one could have taken his life from him (John 10:17-18); he could have called more than twelve legions of angelic messengers to save himself if he had chosen.  (Matt. 26:52-54)  Yet many bystanders erroneously taunted, “Others he saves!  Himself he cannot save!”  (Matt. 27:42)  Not! Rather, he carries their “string of sins“/”strings of sin” without reviling and without threat (1 Peter 2:23-25).  By those savage “welts” we are healed (Isaiah 53:5), precisely because God avenged them by healing his flesh at resurrection, then proceeding to overcompensate him with superabundant  healing for us in the bargain!  (I love this Gospel, I do!)  Jesus’ only choices were to avenge himself or to bear those sinful assaults.  He willingly gave up what our sins had deprived him of.  He chose to not avenge himself, to not vindicate his own honor, to not use his own authority, which he had direct from his Father.  He laid it all down, surrendering himself instead into his Father’s hands—”Him Who is judging justly” (1 Peter 2:23).  And that would mean, in the meantime, surrendering himself to his vicious enemies whom he loved, many of whom, by his subsequently demonstrated mercy and  graciousness came to trust him after all and got saved!

The medieval notion that at the Cross God avenged His insulted honor is 180° backwards.  Messiah bore or carried that dishonor instead of avenging himself (although the legitimate authority to do so had never been, nor could ever be, taken from him). He waited for Jehovah’s righteous judgment to avenge the enormity.  It is from LOVE that the Savior died instead of lashing out in revenge to decimate his enemies.  The supernal wisdom behind love aims at “winning souls” back to amity and friendship.  God’s goal was not to incinerate the sinner but to conciliate the silly (from a word suggesting “deserving pity,” meaning feeble-minded, showing little sense, judgment, or sobriety; foolish, stupid, absurd, ludicrous, etc. [Colloq.]:  dazed, senseless, as from a blow.  [Dial.]:  helpless, weak.  [Archaic]:  feeble, infirm.  [Archaic]:  simple, plain, innocent.).

To conclude, the ancient sacrificial lamb, appointed by covenant and well-pleasing to God, got consumed by fire—burning wrath, anger, indignation, fury.  Yet dare we allege that these represented the disposition of God?  The cross of “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, 36) illuminates the truth that yields the true interpretation.  That fiery holocaust depicts the furious hatred and wrath of Satan and the viciousness he propagates in the world.  Yet the smoke rises “into God’s nostrils” as a memorial testimony of faithfully obedient submission depicted and figured by the unblemished lamb.

The raising up of the serpent in the wilderness onto a pole (John 3:14) likewise graphically symbolized the future crucifixion as a heinous sin.  [4/21/06; 12/31/25]

“HE BORE OUR SINS”

Could it be said that when Messiah “carries up our sins in his body onto the pole” (1 Peter 2:24; cf. Heb. 9:28), what he in effect absorbed into his own flesh was all that our sins had deprived him of as the one to whom we owed sinless obedience—our Maker and Master? In other words, was he not experiencing total loss of his own rightful sovereignty, authority, power, lordship, reputation, throne, glory, honor, and might? For these are what belonged to him as flawlessly obedient Son of God and son of mankind and son of David! He had a divine right (if anyone ever had!) to inherit and exert these over the works of his Father’s hands. All should have been subordinated underneath his feet and swayed to his scepter!

Is it fair to say that in his willingly giving up or surrendering all these that were rightfully his possession and property, and which we his proper subjects owed him but refused to pay him, crucifying him instead—that in doing this, he bore our sins instead of bearing our praise, worship, thanksgiving, blessing, glory, honor, etc., and equally bore the loss of his inheritance of his rightful kingdom, i.e., sovereignty, authority, power, lordship, might, throne, strength, wealth, wisdom, reputation, thanks, blessing, etc., anent the house of Israel? Is all this what it really meant for him to “bear our sins” on the cross? If so, then that wooden cross was the absolute antipode, antithesis, and diametric opposite of the throne of glory that ought to have been his at that moment instead.

Therefore, He to whom he “gave it over,” “who is judging justly” (1 Peter 2:23) “highly exalted him and favored him with THE NAME THAT IS ABOVE EVERY NAME/REPUTATION, that in the name of Jesus every knee should be bowing, celestial and terrestrial and subterranean, and every tongue should be acclaiming that Jesus Messiah is Master, for the glory of God the Father”! (Phil. 2:9-11)

THUS GOD HIMSELF PROVIDED COVERAGE CONCERNING OUR SINS! AND MESSIAH WAS THE INSURANCE POLICY OR SURETY THAT PAID UP TO US (“THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART”) WHEN HE BECAME THE COVENANT VICTIM TO OUR INJUSTICE! WHAT A POLICY! Messiah in this way took responsibility for our misdeeds, and by God’s super-excessive repayment to him for what we did to him, he received enough wealth (etc.!) in superfluity, in turn, to enrich us, his enemies! That’s love and pardon…THAT’S GRACIOUSNESS BEYOND MEASURE AND BEYOND DESERTS! That merciful exhibit, that kindness, that longsuffering, is calculated to CONCILIATE ENEMIES, WIN FRIENDS, AND (okay…) “INFLUENCE PEOPLE”! [4/18/06; 11/16/25]