We can be grateful for C. H. Dodd’s inexplicable lapses of citations in his famous treatment of כפר and ΊΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ (“atone“) in the Septuagint (LXX) and some other ancient literature. The odd incompleteness of his scholarship roused his theological opponents to a more thorough examination of Scripture (both Hebrew and LXX) along with especially Hellenistic Jewish authors such as Philo and Josephus. The delightfully ironic upshot of this adversarial exploration and mutual critique would appear to be at least a partial, yet strong, vindication of Dodd’s controversial conclusions. This is the more persuasive precisely because the complementary investigations were performed by scholars with contrary assumptions. Clearly, there was no sympathetic collusion between these antithetic parties. So, what we learn from both skeins, taken together, is of heightened impartiality and interest even today as we pursue a comparison of both positions with the independent research of, e.g., Adolph E. Knoch, who, though an active contemporary, was not a public participant in the historic controversy. [5/20/11; 5/14/24]
Every time an Israelite lay hands on a sacrificial beast’s head he was confessing he had a hand in its death and likewise, prophetically, in the slaying of the “Lamb of God,” their own Messiah and Savior, God’s own Son. That ritual act was, ipso facto, their confession of sin (in the sin[-offering]) and guilt (in the guilt[-offering]), and similarly at Passover (mid-April), the Day of Sheltering (“Atonement,” mid-Ocrober, 6 months later), and the daily morning and evening sacrifices. [5/23/11; 5/14/24]
In Christ was no sin, therefore, on Christ could come no divine wrath. For this reason he constituted the ideal protective cover, shielding, or shelter (כפרת; ΊΛΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ) concerning sins; only divine graciousness could issue toward him from above. Therefore, all who are included in Christ by faith (depicted by baptism) are continuously in God’s graciousness that Christ supremely deserves as the fruit of his faithful obedience to his Father through all, and exceedingly severe, tests. Consequently, all who remain in Christ stay safe from God’s indignation against their sins. To his blood, which represents his soul or sentient existence, is attributed his faithfulness, which deserved not only his Fther’s graciousness, but also a very great just award (ΔΙΚΑΙΩΜΑ) from God’s just judgment. This award, the Holy Spirit, comes, therefore, as a gift to all who likewise exert faith in God’s Explanation of this saving Proclamation, which is God’s power for salvation. Christ’s resurrection was the heavenly seal of God’s favor/graciousness toward him. The superexcessive magnitude of that graciousness is meant for our benefit as otherwise hopeless sinners with no escape from the fate of death that Adam’s sin consigned us to. The grace of Christ’s resurrection is our confident entree into God’s graciousness as well. [5/25/11]
God could not have used the exceedingly slow process of evolution to create life forms for the simple (but true) reason that he sent His Son to earth in the form of Jesus and commissioned him to heal and cure and restore diseased, maimed people instantaneously. Furthermore, Jesus, in turn, commissioned his apostles and other disciples to do likewise in order to validate his Proclamation of salvation from death. Moreover, Jesus was raised from among the dead by God as a powerful sign to confirm our own future destiny if we endure faithful to him and his message. What is the likelihood that a God of such amazing power and care for His creatures would employ such a clumsy, improbable method as evolution to construct beings that He could reconstruct in moments? Not a chance. It’s utterly inconceivable to a normal mind. Salvation is re-creation, not re-evolution. [5/26/11; 5/14/24]
The very narrative of Scripture, in addition to the explicit declarations of God to human beings, reveals the regularities of God’s behavior and the “necessities” entailed by His character traits. These are often a far cry from the orthodox teachings that have been the stock-in-trade of theology. A storyline can reveal, as no amount of abstract theology can, the nuances of God’s behavior over multiple generations, and it can fill otherwise abstruse words with human-scale meanings and relatable contents. The so-called “demands,” “requirements,” and “necessities” of such presumed staples as God’s “[penal!] justice,” look very different from the narrative standpoint of wholesome Scripture than they do from the abstruse angle of scholastic theology. [5/26/11]
The Premial Atonement 