The Deity of Jesus did not disqualify him from solidarity with his fellow humans for the sake of their salvation, because PREMIAL RESTITUTION renders invalid that objection, which rests on the false assumption of PENAL SATISFACTION.

God ordained the SURRENDER (paradosis) of His beloved Son to the murderous Judeans, but He did not ordain their MURDER itself.  He well knew, as did Jesus, what would ensue.  Yet lest we sinful human beings nurture any doubts about it….  In God’s strategy, it must occur that His Son get slain under such adverse circumstances in order to demonstrate and confirm 1) Christ’s SINLESS, FAITHFUL OBEDIENCE, 2) mankind’s SINFUL HATRED OF SUCH UPRIGHTNESS, and 3) God’s SUPERABUNDANT REWARDING JUSTICE/UPRIGHTNESS on behalf of the Crucified One via RESURRECTION AND BEYOND, even in the face of such lethal opposition.  [10/18/10; 2/23/22]

The Deity of Jesus did not prevent or disqualify him from securing the salvation of humanity, because his unique work as Savior had nothing to do with “satisfying the penal justice of God’s wrath, in our place,” in which case his Deity (or perhaps even simply his extraordinary enduement with the Holy Spirit after his baptism) would seem to have rendered him ineligible as a human being to win our salvation (as Faustus Socinus has correctly argued, in my judgment).  The reason why Christ did remain eligible, however, is that his Deity as son rendered him separable (in principle) from his Father, which status would not in itself disallow bodily death, although nor would it prejudice his unprecedented bodily return to life!  When the Son was born a human being at Bethlehem, he became a mortal in principle, i.e., capable of dying as his fellow humans die.  Therefore, he became eligible by virtue of his solidarity with human bodily mortality, his Deity notwithstanding (contrary to the unitarian assumption of Socinus).

Accordingly, Christ’s role in salvation was achieved not by “satisfying God’s penal justice” at all, but by winning His PREMIAL (i.e., rewarding) JUSTICE for the sake of his human brethren.  For this work he indeed needed a superior endowment of Holy Spirit, which he did receive at his baptism.  He had qualified for this endowment by virtue of his being the Word of God in human flesh, faithful and obedient in all things, i.e., without sin.  The extra portion of Holy Spirit enabled him to fulfill the higher requirements of his public teaching and healing ministry to Israel, and especially to remain faithful through an unjust, humiliating, and agonizing death by crucifixion.  But this death was not in any sense a penalty, punishment, or condemnation by God on behalf of our sins, which, as just noted, would have disqualified him from the solidarity necessary to accomplish human salvation.  Much rather, his death, IN VIEW OF HIS PERFECT HUMAN OBEDIENCE TO GOD, was profoundly UNJUST and FOR THAT REASON was DECISIVELY REVERSED BY THE VERDICT AND POWER OF GOD’S JUSTICE, PREMIALLY EXECUTED FOR HIS BENEFIT VIA RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD.  The result was a GLORIFIED HUMAN BODY FOR JESUS, NOW PUBLICLY SPECIFIED AS LORD AND MESSIAH.

Therefore, in terms of this aspect of divine justice, the help Jesus received from God, whether as His only-begotten/born Son or as specially endowed with the Holy Spirit at his baptism, could not give him an “UNFAIR ADVANTAGE” since the central issue is no longer that of “FAIR, TRULY HUMAN PAYMENT OF THE PENALTY FOR SIN(S)” ON BEHALF OF OTHERS/SINNERS at all, but of a PERFECTLY SINLESS SACRIFICE OF A TRUE HUMAN BEING AT THE HANDS OF VICIOUS HUMAN BEINGS, BEFORE THE WATCHFUL EYE OF GOD, IN EXPECTATION OF HIS RESTORATIVE JUSTICE.  And since in terms of this facet of God’s justice no “SUBSTITUTION” or “VICARIOUS EXCHANGE” of PENALTY is entailed, there is no inherent difficulty in RENDERING THE RIGHTFUL REWARD DIRECTLY TO ITS PROPER RECIPIENT, JESUS HIMSELF.  Naturally, he was free and authorized to disburse his own judicial award to his fellow human beings in any manner he pleased.  And since FAITH pleases God and is within reach of any human being within hearing of the Gospel, regardless of their ineradicable mortal weakness and consequent sinfulness, this is the perfect choice of criterion for channeling salvation fairly.

This all implies that Christ’s inherent Deity should not have been perceived as a threat to the integrity and fairness (“justice” in its true sense, according to Socinus) of his atonement in the eyes of Socinus and his followers.  A PREMIAL atonement gives Christ no unfair (i.e., unjust), inequitable advantage, seeing as the issue is not one of HOW TO SUSTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF A PENAL SANCTION BY ONE WHO IS [“ALLEGED TO BE,” as Socinus would characterize the orthodox claim] MORE THAN MERELY HUMAN, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER HUMAN BEINGS (or even just “the elect”) AS THEIR SUBSTITUTE BEFORE GOD AND HIS ABSOLUTE (PENAL) JUSTICE, but rather HOW TO FAIRLY WIN A SUFFICIENT JUDICIAL AWARD TO RANSOM THE WHOLE WORLD OF SINFUL HUMANITY OUT OF THE GRIP AND FEAR OF DEATH AND HENCE OF SATAN AND SIN AS WELL.  The problematics of the two faces of JUSTICE are very different.  The power of the Atonement lies exclusively with the PREMIAL facet, and not at all with the PENAL one.  How different the history of Christianity might have been if all sides had seen this luminous, conciliatory truth! Will our future be different?  Help us, oh God!  [10/19/10; 2/24/22; 3/11/22]