Straggler writes:
There is a third area that I think needs to be continued. That of necessity for Christ's sacrifice.
Why did God deem it necessary for Christ to be sacrificed to pay for mans sins? Why could he not instead forfeit "his right to exact the righteous retribution due him" as you put it in msg 20?
Exacting righteous retribution from another involves the accounting practice of "eye for an eye". That is the nature of righteous justice: no emotion, no sentimentality, no getting off with a light sentence - just the most exact accounting (taking all things into consideration). Such justice would righteously deal with a blow received via method A (eg: betrayal of trust) by returning an equivilent blow via method B (eg: retraction of friendship). The account is settled with no justification for further rancour on either side.
But my friend decides to forfeit that right. When he does this he must absorb the pain of the blow required-to-be-issued-by-justice into himself. His sense of justice has been seared, he has been betrayed, he has been hurt - and one of the ways to balance the books is denied by his decision. So there is only the other way: absorb that blow himself.
We all know what it feels to be wronged - yet have no course of redress involving the other paying. It hurts us, we are offended amd righteously angered. The requirement that justice be done cries out within us - demanding expression. Unless, that is, we decide to absorb that pain into ourselves, to say "no" to the desire inside us demanding we in turn lash out at the offender. And to keep on saying "no" until the fist pummels at us no more. It hurts us to forfeit our right to exact retribution.
We need to remind ourselves that Jesus is God. Thus we can say that the blow God is justified in issuing out, in return for the offence against him, is absorbed by himself - God. In the case where someone is saved that is..
I still do not understand the need for any sacrifice of the sort required of Jesus. Most human forgiveness requires no such thing. If we all live by the same laws why must God's forgiveness require such overt and public sacrifice?
Consider the following hypothetcial scenario:
I entrust a friend with volume 1 of my diary for safe keeping while I spend an extended period in hospital. This is a collection of my most intimate, embarressing and secret thoughts. Should I make it through my hospital stay I will require the diary back unread. Otherwise I request that it be destroyed. Unread.
He swears on his life that he will not read the diary.
Upon my discharge from the hospital healthy and well he remorsefully confesses that he has indeed read the diary.
Despite being initially hurt, betrayed and vengeful I decide that his remorse is genuine and that his friendship is deeply valued.
I choose to forfeit my "right to exact the righteous retribution" due me.
I choose to forgive him. Fully.
I also entrust him with the safekeeping of all subsequent diary volumes.
He never reads any of them and in fact the friendship goes from strength to strength if anything because of, rather than despite, the previous betrayal.
So ultimately we both benefit from my forgiving nature and avoid the mutual sacrifice of a friendship lost.
No goats were sacrificed. No crucifixions required.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
