A Fragrant Aroma

I submitted the following to “Revival Theology,” an on-line Christian forum:

Ephesians 5:2 "and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma."

I find it strange that some imply that God turned away from His Son on the cross - I can't take my eye's off of it.

How is it that the O.T. type for the Atonement is a pleasing aroma when some well intended present day interpreters say it involved an offensive smell?

Strange smell that - which even angels and prophets of old desired to look into - but we are told the Father turned away His countenance.

It seems to me that when Jesus began his 'sin bearing' at the baptism of John, and Father made it a point to announce to the viewing public that He was well pleased, how much more pleased must He have been when he witnessed him finish 'bearing it.'

Stranger still, that the translators of the KJV did not see that they put entirely the wrong construction on his cry 'hli hli lema sabactani'  (Matt. ηλι ηλι or as Mark has it ελοι ελοι).  Notice, no one who was recorded to have heard him utter those words took it to mean he (Jesus) was confessing he was forsaken in the sense of Divine separation.  To the man, they thought he was calling for Elijah!!

This is mightily suggestive that the English translators had an existing bias by which they have inadvertently misdirected our gaze as to what the Savior was really trying to say.  I say a more inconvenient time couldn't have been chosen for the insertion of it.

This is further underscored by the fact that neither Luke or John mentions these words in their accounts of the death of Christ.  Strange, the absence of Apostolic notice by 'the one Jesus loved' is conspicuous given that he went to such lengths to bear witness to the proof of the 'water and the blood' flowing out from his pierced side.

I can form no idea of the vicarious suffering of Jesus, or as the scripture sacredly metaphorizes it, 'bearing our sins' (including sympathy with our experience of suffering of  sickness and disease) that has any dark stain or spot of unloveliness associated with it.  This kind of suffering the universe has never before witnessed.  It was pure, sacred, fragrant willingness to experience spiritual grief over the tragedy of what sin has done to the Godhead, man, and the whole moral universe.  And this thru the Eternal Spirit's agency until it overloaded his physical constitution and ruptured his heart insuring rapid and sure death.

I am so glad that I have a Gospel to preach that doesn't involve having to explain why the Father supposedly had to forsake his Son at the hour of his greatest accomplishment.  It maintains a clear avenue of comprehension of the great victory He was conscious of when he gave up his spirit into the hands of a loving and sympathetic Godhead.

When the Lord Jesus entered this world in Divine self-emptying the inhabitants of Heaven were revealed to have great rejoicing.  When Stephen, the first to give his life for the Lord Jesus in bearing witness to the truth was dying, he was given a vision of the Father and the Lord Jesus 'having come to be standing at the right hand of the Father' applauding his work.  How much more glory do you think the Father, the angels of God, and the faithful dead did greet the one 'who once for all tasted death for every man?'  What do you suppose Our Savior saw on his way out?

For Jesus,
Scott Taylor
Alabama 09.

HISTORICAL OPINIONS AS TO THE NATURE OF CHRIST'S ATONING DEATH

HISTORICAL OPINIONS AS TO THE NATURE OF CHRIST'S ATONING DEATH

(Gordon C. Olson - Copyright 1980, 1993 Bible Research Corp. Reprint by permission.)

The Apostles and early Church Fathers presented in simplicity the life and atoning death of Christ as the only way of salvation through repentance and faith, and did not concentrate on developing scientific statements on how this takes place. It appears that we can group the theories of the centuries under four main headings:

1. SATISFACTION THEORY:― Strictly vicarious and exactly equivalent to man's guilt

A. Satisfaction to Satan, to whom man had chosen to give allegiance and must be liberated by Christ paying to him the ransom price (common from 3rd to 11th centuries): Irenaeus (130?-202?); Origen (185?-254?); Gregory of Nyssa (335-399; Augustine (354-430); Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153).

B. Satisfaction to God the Father universally for all mankind, through a sacrificial death of the Divine Logos who had become one with lost humanity: Athanasius (296-373), the great defender of the Deity of Christ. In salvation the goodness of God must act consistent with His truthfulness and honor, which involves the principle of justice. "Christ as man endured death for us, inasmuch as He offered Himself for that purpose to the Father." Man must be freed not only from the penalty of sin, but from sin itself and be quickened into life.

C. Satisfaction to the ethical nature or justice of God, which demands absolute legal vindication: Anselm (1033-1109), said to have written the first scientific treatise on the Atonement, 1098. God rightfully demands honor and supremacy which man has refused to give, and thus has incurred a debt to God which can only be paid by punishment or by some substituted satisfaction. The God-man, Jesus Christ, with austere dignity came into our world and by His immaculate conduct and by His obedience to a gruesome suffering of death acquired merit before God which may be imputed to the believer as a perfect judicial standing.

D. Satisfaction through a mystical union or a sacrificial bearing of the penalty of sin, providing a "relative satisfaction" as distinguished from an absolute strictly legal satisfaction in the full discharge of guilt, as advocated by Anselm: Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153), a pious and influential monk, typical of the majority of theological leaders from Apostolic times up to Anselm and the Reformation, who followed the descriptive statements of the New Testament without pursuing them to ultimate speculative conclusions.

E. Satisfaction to the offended holiness and justice of God through Christ's bearing the full penalty of man's sin in His vicarious death: Luther (1483-1546); Calvin (1509-1564); and early Reformation leaders, who adopted Anselm's principle of strict judicial satisfaction. The entire guilt and punishment that sinners deserve was transferred to Christ, who by His obedience in life and sufferings endured their total penalty so that sin may no longer be imputed or penalty demanded from those for whom He died, or from those who had been elected to be saved from all eternity. "Our sins were transferred to Him by imputation."

F. Satisfaction as above, with greater emphasis in early post-Reformation times upon the active righteousness of Christ being imputed to the believer as a perfect positive standing: Lutheran and Reformed (or Calvinistic) Confessions, and the Federal Headship theory developed by Cocceius (1603-1669) and more fully elaborated by Turretin (1623-1687). Under the Covenant of Works, Adam was the federal head of all mankind so his sin and its consequences is legally imputed to all. This somewhat replaced the organic or natural relationship theory of guilt for Adam's sin advanced by Augustine (354-430). Through the Covenant of Grace, the Lord Jesus is the federal Head of those who are to experience salvation, being appointed to bear the full guilt of their sins (Adamic and personal) in an atoning death viewed as His passive obedience. By His active obedience to the full demands of Divine law, He is said to have fulfilled perfectly man's requirements and imputes His righteousness to believers so that it is legally considered to be theirs.

Since in the full development of the satisfaction theory, whatever has been accomplished in the Atonement is an exact equivalent of guilt so that salvation proceeds upon the basis of strict judicial justice, in no understandable way can it be general or made for everyone in the same sense, or all will be saved since God will not demand a double payment for guilt-Christ's and the sinner's. But the sacred Atonement was made for all, with no theological reservations: Jn. 3:16-17; Mk. 16:15-16; II Co. 5:14-15; I Tim. 2:3-6; He. 2:9; I Jn. 2:1-2. The Lord Jesus as the Son of Man was under obligation to obey for Himself, since He was "born under the law" (Ga. 4:4-5). His obedience could not, therefore, be imputed to anyone, but He was free to give His life in atonement since He "committed no sin."

2. GOVERNMENTAL THEORY:― The Atonement was necessary to solve the problems of God as a Moral Governor, who lovingly desires to reconcile mankind.

A. The sufferings of Christ were necessary to the Divine government, rather than to the Divine nature: Gregory of Nazianzus (330-390). "Is it not plain that the Father received the ransom, not because He Himself required or needed it, but for the sake of the Divine government of the universe, and because man must be sanctified through the incarnation of the Son of God?" He strongly opposed the idea of a ransom paid to Satan, and could not understand why a ransom should be paid to the Father. He could only fall back on the "economy" of God and put forth no theory of satisfaction. Other early writers, like Athanasius, also mentioned God's governmental problems.

B. Christ suffered unto death in His human nature, not in His Divine nature, and thus the Atonement was not an infinite value to pay fully for the eternal punishment of sinners, but was graciously accepted by God the Father as sufficient to satisfy Divine justice: Duns Scotus (1265-1308). In line with the majority of Christian thinkers of the centuries, he held the principle that the Atonement provided a "relative satisfaction" to the justice of God and proposed his theory in opposition to Anselm, who had insisted upon absolute total equivalent satisfaction through an infinite sacrifice. He came to view the Divine will as not bound by anything fixed in the Divine nature, but free to decide upon what basis sins could be forgiven.

C. Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, and His grace is extended to all. His atoning sacrifice is in and of itself sufficient for the redemption of the whole world, and is intended for all by God the Father. The sacrifice of Christ is not the payment of a debt, nor is it a complete satisfaction of justice for sin. It is a Divinely-appointed condition which precedes the forgiveness of sin, just as the death of a lamb or a goat in the Mosaic economy. Christ's sufferings took the place of a penalty, so that His sufferings have the same effect in reconciling God to man, and procuring the forgiveness of sin, that the sinner's endurance of the punishment due to his sins would have had. The sufferings of Christ were not a substituted penalty, but a substitute for a penalty: Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609); Episcopius (1583-1643); Curcellaeus (1586 1659); Limborch (1633-1712); known as Arminianism. Outside Holland, Arminianism exerted considerable influence in France, Switzerland, Germany, England, and America, and hence throughout the world through various denominations, especially Methodism.

D. God came to be viewed as a benevolent Ruler exercising control over moral beings by good and wise laws designed for mutual happiness of Himself and them. Regulation in a moral government is by means of promised blessings for conformity and penalties of suffering for disobedience. While God in compassionate mercy is willing to forgive or relax His just claims against rebellious moral beings upon evidence of a willingness to cease from rebellion and return to happy submission, He cannot wisely do so without some terrible measure of enlightenment and suffering by a Being of profound dignity. This must demonstrate before all the dreadful nature and consequences of sin and provide an eternal moral force against further indulgence and heart-break to Himself as well as to them: Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), a prominent Dutch jurist and Arminian theologian, who wrote an important book against Socinianism, 1617.

E. The sufferings and especially the death of Christ were sacrificial, were not the punishment of the law but were equivalent in meaning to it, were representative of it and substituted for it. The demands of the law were not satisfied by it, but the honor of the law was promoted by it as much as this honor would have been promoted by inflicting the legal penalty upon all sinners. The distributive (or vindictive) justice of God was not satisfied by it, but His general (or justice for the public good) as a responsible Moral Governor was perfectly satisfied. The active obedience or holiness of Christ made possible His virtuous death in man's behalf, but is not legally imputed to the believer. Christ's atonement was made for all men in the same sense. It was necessary on God's account to enable Him as a consistent Ruler to fulfill His moral obligations to His subjects, when repentant sinners are pardoned through a commitment of faith (E.A. Park, 1883): New England Theology; Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758); his son (1745-1801); Nathaniel Emmons (1745-1840); Caleb Burge (1782-1838); N.W. Taylor (1786-1858); C. G. Finney (1792-1875); Congregationalists (very extensively); "New School" Presbyterians; several groups of Baptists; other groups and leaders in America and England (called "American Theology").

In the governmental theory, the Atonement is not required by the subjective nature or vindictive justice of God before mercy is extended. It is not God in isolation as the injured party, but rather God as a benevolent Ruler in relationship to His moral creatures, with great problems of reconciliation that require solution. These problems involve man's relation to God in intelligent moral government, as well as some means to convey God's very deep reactions toward sin and His abounding mercy toward man in spite of man's desperate rebellion. Man must be broken down before God in deep respect and penitence in a return to a right attitude towards God's loving regulation before forgiveness can take place. The sacred advent and atonement of Christ, therefore, is not merely a measure to discharge guilt by some calculated equivalent. It is the most profound measure conceivable, with an objective to restore a ruptured God-man relationship in all that is involved. The Atonement was, therefore, general in the absolute sense and legally discharged the guilt of no one.

3. MORAL INFLUENCE THEORY:― A manifestation of suffering Divine love was necessary to subdue man's rebellion so reconciliation could take place.

The life and sufferings of Christ were conceived to be an exhibition of Divine love to reconcile man back to God by breaking down his resistance and drawing him back into a life of fellowship with God. There is no specific necessity of satisfying the Divine nature or the problems of God's moral government. The life and sufferings of the God-Man were intended to exert a moral impression upon a hard and impenitent heart, which is thereby melted into contrition, and then received into favor by the boundless compassion of God (Abelard): Clement (185?-254?) of Alexandria; Peter Abelard (1079-1142) of France, who opposed Anselm; Horace Bushnell (1802-1876), a lawyer and New England pastor. Many liberals in theology of succeeding generations accepted his general opinions without sharing his deep sincerity.

4. ETHICAL EXAMPLE THEORY:― Sinful man has been misguided and needed a noble virtuous example to challenge him to a new way of living.

If man is going to realize his potential and be reconciled to God, he must repent and reform his ways. For this purpose Jesus Christ was miraculously brought into our world and thus was more than a mere man (Socinianism, 1600's), or was natural born and as a religious genius identified himself with God in special devotion to achieve a unique ministry to mankind (Unitarianism, 1700's). His virtuous and loving conduct in life and in death as a noble martyr showed us how we ought to love God and each other, or become converted and reconciled to God: Laelius Socinus (1525-1562) and his nephew Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), in Poland; Unitarians, who trace their views back through Arius (256-336); and others of humanistic opinion (Christ a mere man).

Succession of Time in God A Reality!

“Many are much disposed, for example, to hold that there can be no Succession of thought in God, that there is to Him therefore no past, and present, and future, that duration is to Him without the element of time, and must be regarded in His eyes as “one eternal now”.   This, we are persuaded, is an entirely mistaken notion – first, because the facts of creation belie it; second, because the statements of Scripture do not support it; and third, because it is inconsistent with all that we know or can conceive respecting the operations of the mind.  We have therefore no proper alternative but to think of God according to the analogy of our own rational and moral nature, which by the way, we are told, has been formed in the image and likeness of that of God.  Unless we come to this finding, it is a priori obvious to us, that any attempts to examine into the schemes of God with respect to our world or ourselves, is, and must needs be, mystery; in fact, that our relation to God, in its most essential character, has no validity – that we can have no conception of His operations, and no sympathy with His mind, as being of a character wholly foreign to ours.  Such notions misrepresent God, and they forestall the impossibility of our reaching God, or of feeling our true relation to God.  It is such notions that have gone to confound the fore-knowledge and fore-ordination of God, and which has thereby introduced all the difficulty wherewith we are surrounded in speaking of the decrees of God.  It is such notions that have gone to perplex the question of human freedom in respect of divine operation and the fulfillment of the divine will.  It must be of enormous moment, then to understand upon principles that cannot be gainsaid, what are, and must be, the characteristics of the divine mind, as in consistency with all that is proclaimed to us of God, and with all that can be gathered of God from His Word and from His Works.

As to the facts of creation, we know that there was a time (and we must call it time) when these facts began to be – a time when they were not as they now exits – a time when one arose in subservience to another and out of the proper causality, as pre-existing the phenomenal facts, in as far as it produced the facts: does it not necessarily follow that if God, as Creator, prescribed and in Himself constituted the causality of will in each separate case, in due subserviency to facts formally preordained, that there was of necessity before Him a process of what is properly called time?  What is Time but the interval of duration betwixt one event and another?  Time is transition.  Time always marks eventuality: time is measured by eventuality.  Are we to say, there is no eventuality with God?  This is a pantheistic notion, full of incongruities; and goes to destroy the personality of God.  Eventuality exists in the mere variety of thought.  If there be on thought in God as distinguished from another, this distinction of thought marks time.  It is analogous to the question of Space.  Were there not space as applicable to God, there could be no space as applicable to creation.  Space is measurement of extension: space consists in such measurement: it may begin with an atom; but there is no limit to its expansion.  Were there not time and space as applicable to God, it is obvious that there could be no time and space introduced, that is, creation could not be introduced.  Time and space are limitations essential to creation: but how could these exist at all, if they were not originally and intrinsically in God?  Without the presentations of time and space in God, one would make God to be an imperfect Being; for we should render Him incapable of creating the things that are.  Time and space must needs be regarded as characteristics pertaining to the mind of God.  And the Scriptures abundantly confirm this view. They not only speak of ‘the form of God,’ as indicating that the limitations of space belong to Him – limitations, by the way, that may be indefinitely extended, so as to cover the uttermost possible expanse, that is, expanse without limit; (my note: author’s left hand seems to take away what the right hand giveth here, but to proceed) but they speak of the purposes, designs, or ‘decrees of God’.  If there are decrees of God, respecting one thing, and another thing, and another, then there are thoughts of God, as distinguished from one another; and therefore there is time in God as the very necessity of His nature: time, however, that may be expanded from the smallest adminicle termed a twinkling, to the largest possible interval betwixt one eventuality and another – an interval that may be indefinitely expanded.  What follows?  If there is a succession of determinations in God, in symmetrical subordination, that is, a series of thoughts inwardly conceived, and of resolves separately formed, in order to their being outwardly realized, what alternative have we, but to apply to the highest Reason the experiences which we realize in ourselves?  There is no other logical conclusion open to us:  there is no other legitimate inference which we can draw.  It is, moreover, quite out of the question, that contrary to all analogy and all reason, we should prescribe to God a category, whereby we place ourselves out of all sympathy with Him, and out of all possibility of understanding Him, or even of recognizing the true and proper relation which belongs to us as the offspring of God.  The Scriptures reveal the mind of God to us that we may acquire it, that we may follow after and imitate the same: ‘Be ye followers of God as dear children,’ and so be fitted to tabernacle with God.  But how could this be if there were no succession, that is, no eventuality with God?  If, therefore, we forestall our views of God, by laying down maxims as applicable to God, which lie wholly out of the range of human vision or apprehension, we do but constitute what is nothing than a reductio ad absurdum, by reasoning there from.”
1884, Author to be released.

My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me

In my first real post I want to go on record as siding with an interpre-
tation of Matt. 27:46 that exhonerates the passion of the Lord Jesus
as pure benevolence, substituted and vicarious suffering for man's
sin, in total and unbroken sympathy with the Father and the Holy Spirit.


Scott Taylor
Alabama 09


On “My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me”.  (Matt 27:46) 
 Adam Clarke – Commentary, NT.


“Some have taken occasion from these words to depreciate the character of
our blessed Lord. “They are unworthy,” say they, “of a man who suffers,
conscious of his innocence, and argue imbecility, impatience, and despair.”
This is by no means fairly deducible from the passage.  However, some
think that the words, as they stand in the Hebrew and Syriac, are capable
of a translation which destroys all objections, and obviates every difficulty.
The particle lamah (Hebrew), may be translated, to what - to whom - to
what kind or sort - to what purpose or profit: Genesis 25:32; Genesis 32:29;
33:15; Job 9:29; Jeremiah 6:20; 20:18; Am 5:18; and the verb azab signifies
to leave - to deposit - to commit to the care of.  See Genesis 39:6; Job 39:11;
Psalm 10:14, and Jeremiah 49:11.

The words, taken in this way, might be thus translated: My God! my God!
to what sort of persons hast thou left me? The words thus understood are
rather to be referred to the wicked Jews than to our Lord, and are an
exclamation indicative of the obstinate wickedness of his crucifiers, who
steeled their hearts against every operation of the Spirit and power of God.
See Ling. Brit. Reform. by B. Martin, p. 36.

Through the whole of the Sacred Writings, God is represented as doing
those things which, in the course of his providence, he only permits to be
done; therefore, the words, to whom hast thou left or given me up, are
only a form of expression for, “How astonishing is the wickedness of
those persons into whose hands I am fallen!” If this interpretation be
admitted, it will free this celebrated passage from much embarrassment,
and make it speak a sense consistent with itself, and with the dignity of
the Son of God.” ...

But whatever may be thought of the above mode of interpretation, one
thing is certain, viz. That the words could not be used by our Lord in the
sense in which they are generally understood. This is sufficiently evident;
for he well knew why he was come unto that hour; nor could he be
forsaken of God, in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
The Deity, however, might restrain so much of its consolatory support as
to leave the human nature fully sensible of all its sufferings, so that the
consolations might not take off any part of the keen edge of his passion;
and this was necessary to make his sufferings meritorious. And it is
probable that this is all that is intended by our Lord’s quotation from the
twenty-second Psalm.”

Greetings fellow bloggers (gender independent), I hereby make my mark in the virtual world of 1's & 0's with no expectation for self authentication as a result. I'm pretty sure I exist and are happy.