All throughout history, from the tribes surrounding the Israelites, to the Egyptians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Aztecs, Maya and Incas, the Philippine Islands, the North American Indians, the Africans, the South and Central American “Indian” tribes, the Asian and South Asian peoples; as I said, all throughout history, people have recognized that the gods required a sacrifice to appease them and atone for the misdeeds of the nations. Some gods merely required a gift of foodstuff, as in some of the Asian deities, but some demanded the blood of innocents. In many cases thousands of innocents were sacrificed in vain attempts to appease the gods and stave off disaster. Even today, in some “christian” sects, people engage in self-flagellation, self-crucifixion, or crawl for miles over broken glass in an effort to atone for their sins.

Why is it then, that people cannot seem to grasp that The One, True God also requires a sacrifice to redeem us from the curse of the Law and the results of our sinful natures, but that in His Mercy and Grace, knowing that nothing we could do would ever be sufficient to pay the price to satisfy His Holiness and Justice, gave HIMSELF as the sacrificial atonement for our sins? I like the way the Old King James Version puts it when telling about Abraham and Isaac’s trip up the mountain: “My son, God will provide Himself the sacrifice,…” I read that as “God will provide Himself (as) the sacrifice,…”

Praise God! Hallelujah! Glory be to God! When I consider that,… and I admit I cannot quite get my head around such Love,… I want to shout it from the rooftops! “For God so Loved the world,….” WOW!

The story of God, the Gospel, the Atonement are all quite adequately dealt with in the writings of the authors of The New Covenant. We may very well need help in understanding what we read, but we should never try to add our own opinions on the matter and make them the gospel. Neither should we subtract anything from what was written because it offends our concepts of right and wrong or our modern ideas.

God Himself instituted the practice of blood-sacrifice in killing an animal and using the hide to cover the evidence of Adam’s sinful act. Under the Old Covenant, He required
burnt offerings to make atonement for mankind’s sins, meaning He did not merely overlook their,… or our,… sins.

That those sacrifices were not sufficient to entirely pay the debt that mankind owes because of our sinful nature does not make God less Holy, or Righteous, or Just. Those sacrifices under the Old Covenant were meant as a temporary measure to atone for their sins and redeem them from the consequences of their sinful nature. The blood and burnt sacrifices were but an imitation, an imperfect picture, of the sacrifice that would ultimately satisfy the requirements of a Holy, Righteous and just God. In short, they point to the only sacrifice that would really pay the price of redemption for all mankind. The death on the cross of Christ Jesus, was,… and is today,… the only sacrifice that would, or could,… or can now,… make mankind acceptable in God’s sight. God, in His Mercy and Grace, paid the penalty Himself in the person of His innocent Son.

“How does the torture of one man expiate the wrath of God for the sin of all humanity?” The torture of one MAN can never expiate the wrath of God. It took the death of the perfect God-man to expiate His wrath. Man’s efforts are “but filthy rags.”

We do NOT need new “perceptions/perspectives/theories.” While I agree that we will never fully understand or appreciate the Gospel in its entirety, I think that what we need more of is the unvarnished, uncorrupted, old-fashioned Gospel according to the Holy Bible.

You ask some good questions.

Actually, God didn’t simply overlook sins in the Old Testament. He provided the sacrificial system, which Jesus said pointed to his sacrifice on the cross. This is a major theme in Hebrews.

Israel was threatened with punishment for sin. It’s clear that God hates sin and that sin leads to death and alienation from God. The afterlife is hinted at but not clearly taught, but this is more an issue of progressive revelation than anything else.

It is hard to understand how the death of one man can be enough to save many, especially since we tend to think individualistically. It’s also hard to understand what Paul teaches about being “in Adam” or “in Christ.” Of course, Jesus wasn’t just any man. He was God and was sinless. It is clear, though, that Jesus’ death was sufficient to save many (John 1:29, 1 John 2:2, 1 Tim. 2:6, etc.).

Why is God’s wrath over the sin of an individual never expiated even with eternal torment? Because hell is ultimately not a place where sins are paid for or where people repent and are reconciled to God.

About your comment at Mike’s site – I agree penal substitution is not the only perspective needed on the cross, but if anyone uses it as an excuse to ignore this life and focus only on heaven, they really haven’t taken the New Testament teaching in its entirety.

There are tons of good questions, and we’ll never get it clearly tied up. The Scriptural evidence about God’s justice and wrath against sin are pretty compelling (to say the least), as are the texts that teach that Christ’s death is more than an example or the defeat of evil or because we needed to get over sin. It is that, but it’s more.

I am certainly open to these ideas. Comprehending the cross in its entirety is beyond our capacity. Why should it be any different from the myriad other theological mysteries? It makes sense to me that it can simultaneously stand for a number of things both symbolic and transactional. It seems to me the more reasonable perspectives we consider, the more fullsome our understanding will become.

I do hope you write more about this Darryl. I am fascinated.