In light of my recent post about the "unforgivable sin" mentioned in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, my thoughts turned to another text from Hebrews 9.
Thank you for this, Richard. I am seeing more and more how I've been living within a soteriological trajectory that distances me from the very heart of God revealed in the cross.
Myron: HI! I believe God has no needs, not even the need for justice. Right and wrong both come from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There is another tree….the tree of life. Eating from that tree….thinking the way God thinks….brings life. God is love. Love takes no offense. Therefore, God takes no offense. There has never been a need for justice, God having taken no offense. LOVE AND TRUTH ABIDE!
From DeepSeek. Richard Beck’s critique of "mechanistic" views of atonement—particularly those that depict God as requiring a transactional or sacrificial process to forgive sins—finds support in historical theology, especially when contrasted with early Christian and patristic thought. Here’s some historical evidence backing his claim:
1. Early Christian Rejection of Pagan Sacrificial Logic
Many early Church Fathers argued against pagan notions of deities who needed appeasement through sacrifices. For example:
Justin Martyr (2nd century) contrasted Christianity with pagan religions, emphasizing that God does not demand blood sacrifices but seeks repentance and mercy (Dialogue with Trypho).
Origen (3rd century) rejected the idea that God’s forgiveness required a "payment," arguing that Christ’s death was primarily a demonstration of God’s love, not a necessity imposed by divine justice (Contra Celsum).
2. Theological Critique of Penal Substitution
The idea that God required Christ’s death as a condition for forgiveness (later formalized in Anselm’s satisfaction theory and Reformed penal substitution) was not the dominant view in early Christianity.
Gregory of Nazianzus (4th century) explicitly rejected the idea that God needed a "ransom" to be paid to Himself, calling it a "business transaction" unworthy of God (Oration 45).
Athanasius (On the Incarnation) spoke of Christ’s death as a victory over sin and death, not as a payment to satisfy divine wrath.
3. Alternative Views: Moral Influence & Christus Victor
Many early theologians saw the atonement as a revelation of God’s love rather than a mechanistic requirement:
Abelard (12th century) argued that Christ’s death was meant to inspire love in humanity, not to satisfy a debt (Exposition of Romans).
The Christus Victor model (common in the early Church) framed the atonement as liberation from evil forces, not as a transaction within the Godhead.
4. Critiques from Later Theologians
Duns Scotus (14th century) argued that God could have forgiven humanity without the Cross if He so willed—divine mercy was not constrained by a legalistic necessity.
Karl Barth (20th century) rejected the idea that God’s forgiveness was conditional on Christ’s suffering, emphasizing that grace is freely given (Church Dogmatics IV/1).
5. Pagan Parallels vs. Christian Critique
Beck’s claim that "mechanistic" atonement theories borrow from pagan imagination aligns with critiques of how sacrificial cults in antiquity (e.g., Greek, Roman, or Near Eastern religions) operated, where gods were often seen as needing appeasement. Early Christians distanced themselves from this logic, insisting that God forgives freely (e.g., Luke 15, the Prodigal Son).
Conclusion:
Beck’s assertion is supported by a long tradition of theologians who rejected the idea that God’s forgiveness required a transactional mechanism. Instead, many emphasized that the Cross was a voluntary act of divine love, not a necessity imposed by some cosmic legalism. Historical evidence shows that the dominant early Christian view was far more focused on liberation and transformation than on satisfying a divine demand for retribution.
Could God forgive sins without the sacrifice of blood? I don’t know. But I have no problem stating there are things God cannot do. For instance, God cannot sin. God cannot lie. God cannot fail. So is a death (the “spilling” of blood) required for sin? It does seem so. Was blood on the doorpost required for the Angel to Passover the homes of the first born? I don’t know why the “wages of sin” is death. But death sure seems important in our salvation. It is what we are immersed into (Rom 6) in order that we live a new life.
Thank you for this, Richard. I am seeing more and more how I've been living within a soteriological trajectory that distances me from the very heart of God revealed in the cross.
Does love not include justice?
Myron: HI! I believe God has no needs, not even the need for justice. Right and wrong both come from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There is another tree….the tree of life. Eating from that tree….thinking the way God thinks….brings life. God is love. Love takes no offense. Therefore, God takes no offense. There has never been a need for justice, God having taken no offense. LOVE AND TRUTH ABIDE!
Is justice (righteousness) a need or simply who He is?
Why does the shedding of innocent blood, allow forgiveness?
From DeepSeek. Richard Beck’s critique of "mechanistic" views of atonement—particularly those that depict God as requiring a transactional or sacrificial process to forgive sins—finds support in historical theology, especially when contrasted with early Christian and patristic thought. Here’s some historical evidence backing his claim:
1. Early Christian Rejection of Pagan Sacrificial Logic
Many early Church Fathers argued against pagan notions of deities who needed appeasement through sacrifices. For example:
Justin Martyr (2nd century) contrasted Christianity with pagan religions, emphasizing that God does not demand blood sacrifices but seeks repentance and mercy (Dialogue with Trypho).
Origen (3rd century) rejected the idea that God’s forgiveness required a "payment," arguing that Christ’s death was primarily a demonstration of God’s love, not a necessity imposed by divine justice (Contra Celsum).
2. Theological Critique of Penal Substitution
The idea that God required Christ’s death as a condition for forgiveness (later formalized in Anselm’s satisfaction theory and Reformed penal substitution) was not the dominant view in early Christianity.
Gregory of Nazianzus (4th century) explicitly rejected the idea that God needed a "ransom" to be paid to Himself, calling it a "business transaction" unworthy of God (Oration 45).
Athanasius (On the Incarnation) spoke of Christ’s death as a victory over sin and death, not as a payment to satisfy divine wrath.
3. Alternative Views: Moral Influence & Christus Victor
Many early theologians saw the atonement as a revelation of God’s love rather than a mechanistic requirement:
Abelard (12th century) argued that Christ’s death was meant to inspire love in humanity, not to satisfy a debt (Exposition of Romans).
The Christus Victor model (common in the early Church) framed the atonement as liberation from evil forces, not as a transaction within the Godhead.
4. Critiques from Later Theologians
Duns Scotus (14th century) argued that God could have forgiven humanity without the Cross if He so willed—divine mercy was not constrained by a legalistic necessity.
Karl Barth (20th century) rejected the idea that God’s forgiveness was conditional on Christ’s suffering, emphasizing that grace is freely given (Church Dogmatics IV/1).
5. Pagan Parallels vs. Christian Critique
Beck’s claim that "mechanistic" atonement theories borrow from pagan imagination aligns with critiques of how sacrificial cults in antiquity (e.g., Greek, Roman, or Near Eastern religions) operated, where gods were often seen as needing appeasement. Early Christians distanced themselves from this logic, insisting that God forgives freely (e.g., Luke 15, the Prodigal Son).
Conclusion:
Beck’s assertion is supported by a long tradition of theologians who rejected the idea that God’s forgiveness required a transactional mechanism. Instead, many emphasized that the Cross was a voluntary act of divine love, not a necessity imposed by some cosmic legalism. Historical evidence shows that the dominant early Christian view was far more focused on liberation and transformation than on satisfying a divine demand for retribution.
This power-packed piece is the best yet.
Could God forgive sins without the sacrifice of blood? I don’t know. But I have no problem stating there are things God cannot do. For instance, God cannot sin. God cannot lie. God cannot fail. So is a death (the “spilling” of blood) required for sin? It does seem so. Was blood on the doorpost required for the Angel to Passover the homes of the first born? I don’t know why the “wages of sin” is death. But death sure seems important in our salvation. It is what we are immersed into (Rom 6) in order that we live a new life.
Thank you! As I understand it, it was the consequences of Jesus’ life that put him on the cross! Not a blood sacrifice.
Very clear and very helpful. I love the term mechanistic sacrificial atonement. God is love, and Hebrews always was a bit mechanistic.
To save Creation from ultimate death required nothing less than the life of the Creator. Got it. Great word.