Introduction:

Sin separated mankind from God (Isa 59.2). Due to the original sin of first man - Adam then sins committed by his descendants, mankind become enemy of God and need God’s grace through Lord Jesus Christ to go back to the Father in heaven.  The wage of sin is death (Rom 6:23), but God loved the mankind whom he created in his own image and had made it possible for sin be dealt with and be forgiven.  In Old Testament, sacrifice was what God gave it as the way (Lev 17:11).  In New Testament, the cross takes the focus. It was where the Son of God and perfect Lamb of God - Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross that makes atonement for sin once and forever. Mankind just unable to achieve that by own works to attain salvation.[1] 

 1. Covenant

Faith: We Christians, Paul is arguing, have come to God by Abraham’s way, the way of trust. We are included in the covenant with Abraham, a covenant of grace, faith and freedom.  The covenant Jesus made is a ‘better’ covenant than the old one. When Christ ‘became a priest, God swore an oath that this priesthood would be ‘for ever’. Our author reasons, ‘Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant’(Heb.7:21-22).  p.38 [2]

     Paul is in no doubt said that the old covenant was glorious. But he points out that that glory was no more than temporary (fading, 2 Cor 3:7) which means that it was inferior to the glory that does not fade away, the glory that arises from ‘the ministry of the Spirit (verse 8). He goes on to details the ways in which the new covenant is more glorious, but they all boil down to this, that the new covenant brings an effectual and lasting salvation whereas the old ends in nothing but condemnation.  p.39

     But in Hebrews it is rather the initial act of being set apart to be God’s. We should probably see this also in the passage about Abel to which we have already referred. Our author speaks of coming to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel’ (Heb. 12:2). The sprinkling of blood points to cleansing and consecration. Abel’s blood cried to God for vengeance (Gn. 4: 10), but the blood of Jesus bring forgiveness and consecration to the service of God. The forgiven belong to God.    p.40

      We should note his references to Christ as having suffered once for all (Heb. 9:12). This is clear in the record of Jesus’ words in Matthew: ‘This is which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’ (Mt. 26:28). This being so, there is no need for the multiplicity of regulations governing approach to God which were so characteristic of Judaism and against which Paul made such vigorous (strong) protest.  The way to God is now seen to be through Christ and through him alone. ‘Salvation is found in no-one-else, for there is no other name under heaven which we must be saved Acts 4:12).     p.41

      As Paul saw so clearly, this gives us a freedom that is not found elsewhere. We are not bound to approach God by this or that liturgical path, or by keeping this or that series of regulations. We come boldly in the name of Christ. All else falls away. Nothing else matters. Of course, being a follower of Christ is a whole-hearted and full-time affair. But it is this because this is involved in the living out of what it means to belong to Christ.   ibid

  Every Christian enters the covenant by faith, and here the references to the covenant with Abraham as of continuing force are important. Abraham is the classic example of faith for the New Testament writers and to be involved in the covenant with Abraham means to live by faith as that patriarch did. Not all the descendants of Abraham were caught up in his covenant with God, and Paul specifically makes the point that in the sense that matters Abraham’s children are those who believe, whether they are physically descendants or not,  whether they are circumcised or not.  A consideration of the place of faith the covenant calls us to consider the reality of our faith. Without faith, there is no membership in the covenant.  The Holy Communion is a constant reminder of the place of the covenant.  Every time we eat and drink the wine in that service we proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’ (1 Cor.11:26). We proclaim to others and to ourselves our deep conviction that the Lord’s death is central. It is by that death alone that our sins are put away and that we are brought into right relationship with God. Our participation is a pledge that we, whose covenant with God has been established at such cost, will live in a manner befitting the covenant.  p.42

 2. Sacrifice

     Paul speaks of God as sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering’ (Rom.8:3) and most would agree that the translation can be justified. Hebrews quotes from Psalm 40 a passage which includes the words, ‘with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased’ (Heb. 10:6; cf. verse 8). A scribe agreed with Jesus that ‘to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices (Mk. 12:33).  p. 44

      They point out that for sins done ‘with a high hand’ (‘defiantly’, NIV) there was no sacrifice (Nu. 15:30). We should be clear that the whole sacrificial system was meant for people in covenant relationship with God, perhaps we might say for those in a state of grace. But sins that put them outside the covenant put them outside of the sacrifices also. Thus the sins of Eli’s sons and his failure to restrain them were so serious that The guilt of Eli’s house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering (1 Sa. 3:14)  p.51

  Leviticus 17:11: ‘For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.’ Most would understand the last part of the verse differently, as in the translation of RSV: it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life. This understanding of the Hebrew signifies that it is because of the connection of life and blood that blood makes atonement, This is held to be reinforced by the prohibition of meat with the blood still in it.   p.53

     What matters, they say, is the release of life. Atonement is secured when life is surrendered, released, set free for a new function.  Sometimes atonement was at the time the census was taken each of the Israelites was to pay the   LORD a ransom for his life at the time he is counted’ (Ex. 30:12).  p.57

     On the occasion when the Israelites made the golden calf for worship, Moses impressed that they had sinned greatly,  he wanted to put things right. He went up to the LORD trying to make atonement for the people’s  sin, asking that they be forgiven and added, ‘but if not, then blots me out of the book you have written’ (Ex. 32:30-32).  He offered his death to atone for their sin.  Another time atonement was looked for during the wilderness wanderings whereby Phinehas took resolute action in killing an Israelite and the Moabite woman with whom he was having intercourse. He was zealous for the honour of his God and made atonement for Israelite (Nu. 25:13) i.e. atonement by way of death. In (Dt. 21:1-8) The death of the heifer atoned for any sin that might be thought to rest on the town. In this passage the word ‘blood’ is mentioned four times in verses 7-9 and the verb kipper, to make atonement, twice, but atonement is not connected with blood in any of these instances. It is the death of the heifer by means of a broken neck and not any life released in blood that brings atonement.  p.58

     A fourth incident is that in which there was a famine during the reign of David and it was revealed to the king that this was due to the fact that King Saul had put certain Gibeonites to death (2 Sa. 21: 1). The Gibeonites should have been inviolate as far as Israel was concerned in terms of the agreement recorded in Joshua 9, but evidently Saul had violated the agreement on some unrecorded occasion. Now David summoned the Gibeonites and asked, How shall I take amends ... ?’ where the Hebrew means ‘How shall I make atonement ...?’ (verse 3). The Gibeonites replied that they did not look for silver or gold and that they had no right to put anyone to death. When David pressed them further they said let seven of (Saul’s) male descendants be given to us to be killed’ (verse 6).   If atonement is secured by releasing life, we are justified in arguing, then why should atonement outside the sacrifices be repeatedly sought not by any release of life but by the infliction of death? Since the sacrifices involved the deaths of animals and people, should we not see these deaths as significant?  p.59

     While it is true that some times it is said that the blood is connected with atonement as in (Lv. 17: 11), this is far from universal.  p.60

     So is it in some metaphorical passages which use the imagery of sacrifice as a symbol for slaughter. Thus Jeremiah speaks of day of vengeance : The sword will devour till it is satisfied, till it has quenched its thirst with blood. For the Lord, the LORD Almighty, will offer sacrifice...’ (Je. 46:10). There are some grim words of Zephaniah: ‘The LORD has prepared a sacrifice; he has consecrated those he has invited. On the day of the LORD’S sacrifice I will punish the princes...’ (Zp. 1:7-8). In passages like these it is plain that sacrifice means death.  We should possibly add references to the institution of the Passover, where blood was the means of averting (avoid) destruction. It was to be put on the lintels and doorposts so that the destroying angel would pass over them (Ex. 12:7, 13, 22-23). It is true that this first Passover was not quite the same as a normal liturgical sacrifice. But it has cultic overtones and it led into the annual Passover sacrifice. And in this use of blood once again there seems no place for understanding the imagery as pointing to life. p.61

     Explicit sacrificial language is used in a variety of way are two words to be considered, ‘sacrifice’ (thusia) and" offering (prosphora), which sometimes occur together as in the sacrifice and offering cited in Hebrews 10:5. Mostly when the sacrifices of the old way are considered the thought is that they could not bring the worshippers forgiveness. As the writer to the Hebrew put it, ‘it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats take away sins’ (Heb. 10:4); they ‘were not able to clear the conscience of the worshipper’ (Heb. 9-9).   By contrast, the sacrifice that Jesus made is effective. It was a sacrifice offered in love. p.64

     Thus the writer to the Hebrews points out, in a passage in which he dismisses burnt offerings and sin offerings and stresses the importance of doing the will of God, that ‘by that will, we have been made holy the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’ (Heb.10:10) The will is important and we should not overlook the contrast between Christ’s willing sacrifice of himself and the uncomprehending, involuntary sacrifices that necessarily occurred when animals were offered. Animal sacrifice can never produce a purification valid in heaven.  But Christ’s sacrifice can.  Jesus has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself’ (Heb. 9:26). And believers have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ.  p.64

     The utter finality of Christ’s sacrifice is an important true. Nevertheless, to see Christ as having offered the perfect sacrifice that brings us salvation is not to assume ‘cheap grace’. It does not mean that we offer no sacrifice. It means that our sacrifice is of a different order. It is not atoning, but a costly response to a sacrifice that is atoning. Christian shall offer their bodies ‘as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God’ (Rom. 12:1). p.65

     The meaning of the cross is in its own distinctive way, it emphasis on these things:   p.66

     1. Sin is defiling:  In an ancient sanctuary everything was arranged to put emphasis on the holiness of God. Even ceremonial faults were seen as defiling and sin was much more so.  Sin stained the worshipper and made him unclean. Sin meant that he was not fit to approach the holy God.

     2. Purification: When a sacrifice was offered the worshipper was cleansed. Whether it was a ceremonial defilement or a moral lapse, the offering of sacrifice was seen as purging the sin so that the worshipper was now in a state of purification. His sin was completely removed.

     3. The death of the victim counts: In a sacrifice the blood must be manipulated in prescribed ways and part or all of the animal must be burnt on the altar. All this speaks of the necessity for death nothing less, if sin is to be put away. Sin is not some trifle, to be airily (lightly) dismissed with no effort. Sin means death (Ezk. 18:4; Rom). and nothing less suffices to take it away.   

     4. Salvation is at cost: David showed an insight into the meaning of sacrifice when he said to Araunah, ‘I will not sacrifice to the LORD my God burnt offering that cost me nothing’ (2 Sa. 24:24). The use of the terminology of sacrifice means that the way of forgiveness is costly. It is not until we come to the death of Jesus on the cross that we can see the full meaning of costliness. But inherent in the concept is that forgiveness comes only at cost.

     5. Spiritual sacrifices: The New Testament writers look for a response to the sacrifice of Christ. The believer must offer himself as a living sacrifice, which certainly means that his whole way of life is to be different because of what Christ has done for him. The sacrifice of Christ means that the way of salvation is free; but it does not mean that it is cheap. But the really important thing is that Christ has made the perfect sacrifice, and ‘there is no longer any sacrifice for sin’.  p.67

3. The Day of Atonement

     It is the day when the high priest enters the ‘Most Holy Place’ (Lv. 16:2); also called ‘Holy of Holies’ and ‘mercy seat’. Only the high priest could enter, a very restricted admission. Yet, the high priest is not to presume on the presence of God. Anyone who presumed to enter in the wrong way and at the wrong time must expect to die, as the fate of Nadab and Abihu showed. God is majestic, powerful and remote. This must never be forgotten.   On just one day in a year approach is permitted and the high priest must be ceremonially clean and lots of procedures must be followed.  Whereas different sins been dealt with accordingly. The day was one of special importance and solemnity pp.69-72 

     The placing of the sins of the people on the scapegoat as per the OT people saw their sins completely removed.  The sins were laid on the goat, and taken into the wilderness so that they saw them no more. The ceremonies witnessed to a conviction that the normal offering of sacrifices is not cover all the sins people committed.  Something more was needed, a point which will be taken up and given emphasis in the New Testament.  p.73

     The Jewish Rabbis however held that if properly observed, the Day of Atonement availed for all the sins of all the people.  (also refer Shebuoth 1:6) p.82

     But the sacrificial system in Old Testament day did not seems to remove all sin. The writer to the Hebrews makes a good deal of the fact that the Day of Atonement shows that the sacrifices normally offered could not remove sin (Heb. 9:7-9) and even the Day of Atonement could do not do that (Heb.10:1-10).  p.73

     ‘The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing’ (Heb.9:8). The line of approach is not ‘This is the way the sins of Israel are remitted but rather, ‘This is the way the high priest may enter the Holy of Holies.’

     It is probably this connection with sin that motivates the emphasis on blood.  The high priest entered the sacred place only once a year, and never without blood (Heb. 9:7).  With a most important precaution was the presentation of the blood of a sacrificial victim.  Only with the blood could the people’s representative be cleansed from sin and be accepted as fit to approach the presence of God.  The writer to the Hebrews bears this in mind. He points out that Christ entered the heavenly Holy Place not ‘by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption’ Heb. 9:12). The contrast between the blood of Christ and the blood of animals is important, for ‘it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins’ (Heb. 10:4). just as it was impossible for animal blood to take away sin, so it was impossible for it to secure access. Christ’s blood is different. It really opens up the way into the presence of God.  p.83

     The high priest dealt only with an earthly tabernacle or temple, but Christ with the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation’ (Heb. 9:11) Putting it another way, he says, ‘Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only he entered heavenly Holy of Holies himself, now to appear for us in God’s presence (Heb.9:24).  p.84

     The second contrast concerns people. The high priest could do no more than enter the Holy of Holies could not take anyone with him. He could enter only on day in the year. The fullest exercise of his ministry with all the solemnity at his command obtained only access on one day for him only. The people must forever be content with access by proxy. But in Hebrews there is there is emphasis on two wonderful truths: Christ secured access into the very presence of God in heaven and access not for himself only but for all his people as well.’  Because Christ’s blood was shed, all who believe in him have access into the very holiest of all.  ibid

     But what the animal sacrifices in general and those on the Day of Atonement in particular could not do, that Jesus has perfectly accomplished. Jesus ‘entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption’ (Heb.9:12).  There can be no improvement on eternal redemption;  Jesus did not ‘enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year’ (Heb. 9:25). p.86

     Atonement is of divine origin and sin is put away only because God wills it and has ordained means whereby it can be accomplished. No pagan ideas of appeasement of an offended deity. We see this in the work of Christ. The epistle to the Hebrews opens with a majestic sentence which stresses that God has always taken the initiative, in his dealings with his people and that this divine initiative comes to its climax in the work of Christ.  The Day of Atonement, then, has its place in the New Testament picture of Christ’s saving work. It contributes to the idea of the new and living way two thoughts: access and forgiveness.

     Access: Our sins separate us from God (Is. 59:2). We have no way of remedying the situation. But Christ has opened for his people the way into the very present of God. This does not mean an occasional access. Christians: live day by day in the assurance that the way into the presence of God is open wide. They need the mediation of no earthly priest. Indeed, no one all of life is lived in God’s presence. This is a most important truth for Average Christian. The average person is just that average. He or she has no great importance in the eyes of the world.  Indeed that is one of life’s frustrations. When an injustice is done to us we have no access to the great ones who might put things right. We are continually pushed around by low grade bureaucrats and kept in our place by office receptionists. It is possible to spend hours awaiting the pleasure of some subordinate official.  This is part of life and if anything can be done about it I do not what it is. But believers have access where it really counts.  Christ’s fulfillment of the Day of Atonement ceremonies has opened up the way into the present of God for the humblest of his people. Nothing on earth can take away what this means in terms of prayer and of companionship.

     Forgiveness: The imagery of the scapegoat, fulfilled in Christ’s perfect bearing of sins, means that sins are really forgiven. The blood of animal sacrifices could never cope with the problems of man, made in God’s image as he is. But the blood of Christ can and does. Our Day of Atonement was the day of the cross. Jesus ‘suffered outside the city gate to make his people holy through his own blood’ (Heb. 13:12).   p.87

 4 The Passover

     In sacrificial terms of a general reference. Paul says explicitly Christ our Passover was sacrificed’ (1Cor. 5:7)  The deliverance of the Old Testament Israelites from the bitter bondage in Egypt was not to be automatic. God sent nine plagues but Pharaoh had not let them go. At the tenth a more grievous plague: ‘Every firstborn son in Egypt will die.’ In this plague God will protect his own people. They must do as God directed and identify themselves as those obedient to his commands, his instruction and timing.  Mainly some of the blood of the animal was to be put ‘on the sides and tops of the door-frames of the houses where the Israelites were to eat the meal (Ex. 12:7).  ‘Eat it in haste’, the instruction proceeds; ‘it is the LORD’S Passover’ (Ex. 12:11). The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch the Israelites when God strike Egypt (Ex. 12:13). The Israe1ites did as they were told (Ex.12:28) and escaped the destruction which overtook the Egyptians.  p.89

     Not only were they to observe the one night of deliverance, but they were to eat bread made without yeast (=unleavened bread) for seven days. The Israelites were instructed that they must keep this feast for ever as a memorial of the deliverance God had given them (Ex. 12:14-15). The Old Testament often refers to the feast of unleavened bread which includes the Passover as well as the seven days following. This feast was to be an Israelite observance; no uncircumcised person was to eat of it (Ex. 12:43-49).  p.91

     Passover was an annual reminder to the Israelites of the greatest deliverance recorded in their sacred books. The later books of the Old Testament look back to the exodus and regard it as the greatest of all deliverances, the classic example of what God could do to set his people free. Literature like the Psalms contains many references to those exciting days and there is an illuminating passage in which Jeremiah, centuries after the exodus, speaks about this deliverance. Actually he is not engaging in historical reminiscence but trying to bring out the magnitude of the disaster that he foresaw was about to overtake the people He makes his point by telling his hearers that their plight will be so serious that to get them out of it will require a deliverance greater than that which brought their ancestors, out of Egypt!  ‘So then, the days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when people will no longer say, "As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the Israelites up out of Egypt," but they will say, "As surely as the LORD lives, who brought the descendants of Israel up out of the land of the north and out of all the countries where he had banished them." Then they will live in their own land’(Je. 23:7-8).   p.91

     The Passover is that of deliverance. The day had its solemn side and spiritually minded people always bear in mind their unworthiness and their need of forgiveness and cleansing when they approach the Lord.  We must not overlook this. But the main thought in the annual observance was certainly deliverance. The Passover reminded worshippers that God is mighty, that he had once intervened to deliver his people from a strong enemy (and could do so again if need be), and, that from that deliverance there had emerged the nation that was in a special sense the people of God.  p.92

     The Rabbis have similar view the Passover that is bringing about forgiveness of sins and delivering Israel from Egypt.    In NT, there are links between the Passover and the Holy Communion, that meal which centres on Christ’s death. The Last Supper is called a Passover meal in all three Synoptic Gospels (Mt. 26:17-18; Mk. 14:14-16; ‘ Lk. 22:11 )  p.100

     Jesus chose to die at the time with the Passover in everyone mind.  He does not give the reason for this. But the principal themes of Passover were very well known.  On the last night of his life Jesus inaugurated a service, the Holy Communion, which we may profitably compare with the Passover.   It points to a present activity, while the words ‘you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes’ (1 Cor. 11: 26) are forward looking. It has us looking back to God’s great act at Calvary. it has us looking forward to the time when Christ will come again to bring his saving work to its consummation. With the participation of the whole local group of believers.  p.101

     Paul specifically identifies Christ’s sacrifice with Passover when he writes ‘Christ, our Passover’ (1 Cor. 5:7) Paul has been rebuking the Corinthians for their failure to discipline erring members. Specifically they had not taken decisive action in the case of a church member who had been guilty of a repulsive kind of immorality (I Cor. 5:1-2).  Paul insists that immorality is not to be tolerated in a Christian community. ‘Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?  He firmly instructs them, ‘Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast – as you really are’ (verses 6-7).  Paul is taking yeast as a symbol of evil.   p.103

     Paul’s point is that for Christians the Passover sacrifice is the sacrifice of Christ, the perfect sacrifices without blemish already done; Believers should long since have abandoned evil. It is a vivid reminder that Christ’s death to deliver us means among other things that we put all evil away with decision. The death of Christ for sinners means their death to sin: they have been crucified with Christ (Gal. 2:20), they are to reckon (consider) themselves as dead to sin (Rom. 6:11). The believer is forgiven, but not only this: he has victory over evil. The Passover with its emphasis on deliverance is an apt symbol for this aspect of atonement and the Christian way.  The original Passover delivered the Israelites from destruction and introduced them into a new life in which things Egyptian had no place. They were no longer slaves to the oppressor. They were free. So with the Christians. The death of Christ was the decisive intervention which delivered them from destruction and from sin and introduced them to a new way of life. And in that new way they were free from the slavery to sin that had hitherto characterized them, as it does all people.        John chose to write in such a way as to bring out the truth that Jesus’ death took place at the time the Passover victims were being killed in the temple. This surely means that he saw the death of Jesus as the true Passover sacrifice. Because Jesus died as a Passover sacrifice those who trust in him are no longer subject to the forces of evil. They have been delivered from powerful enemy. They are free. pp.103-104

     The deliverance from Egypt marked the birth of a nation, the emergence of the people of God. The deliverance on the cross marked the emergence of the true Israel apart from bondage, the people of God in more than a merely national sense.  Now the people of God are plainly seen as all those who have been delivered by Christ, from whatever nation they may come.  They are no longer slaves to sin. They belong to God and to one another in the fellowship of the redeemed people of God, for ‘Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us’ (1 Cor. 5:7). p.105

 5. Redemption

     One of the notes that runs through the New Testament is that of freedom. Free from all kind of slavery.  In Christ people are free. It is for freedom that Christ set us free. (Gal.5:1) and the early church appears to have exulted in living out the implication of such words.   p.107

One way to speak of freedom was using the concept of redemption.  Especially in redeeming those held in captivity. It was possible for a slave to be set free, either by his master, or a well-wisher might buy him and let him go, or in sacral manumission way where a slave could save the price (his saving of odd money that came to his way) to redeem his freedom.  In Christianity sense, the redeemer is Jesus Christ. It means deliverance in a particular way.  The redemption (apolytrosis) Christ brought about in dying for sinners were no ordinary redemption, not just one more redemption among others.  God as omnipotent and free, the mighty Father, the great Kinsman redeems (g’l in Septuagint translation) Israel not using payment to anyone but through his outstretched arm; his arm stretch to all his creation as far as all the galaxies but the islands are dust to him.  ‘With his mighty arm God redeemed his people’ (Ps.77:14-15).  God also bring rest to his people’s land, but unrest to those who live in Babylon’ (Je. 50:33-34) p.107

     God’s second redemption (pdh) involved grace.  It refers to the need for Israelites to redeem all their first born sons in Israel (Ex.13:15, Nu.18:17) and was with a cost. (Nu.3:45-47) Use of pdh- redemption thought that God’s deliverance is always a matter of grace. Sinners can never say, ‘God must save me. He is obliged to do something for me.’ There is no necessity laid upon God. He saves freely. He saves because he is a loving God. Where this word-group is used, grace and redemption go together.

pp.114-116

     God’s third redemption (kpr, or with the noun kopher) involved payment of ransom.  In a case where the bull gored someone and the person died. (Ex.21:28-29) The owner of the bull owed others duty of care.  Due his carelessness he had to pay ransom if payment is demanded from him, for him to redeem his life (v.30).  Payment of ransom also been used in Jb.33:24; Pr.13:8; Is.43:3-4 a price been paid for release. God’s people are delivered at cost.  p.117

      All creations belong to God, mankind included. In Garden of Eden, our first parents lived there in fellowship with God, but then sin came and caused a radical alteration of lots of things, including mankind became slaves of sin.  When Jesus said to some Jews, that ‘If you hold to my teaching,’ he said, ‘you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free (Jn. 8:31-32); then the Jews responded with disregard for the realities of life, they exclaimed, ‘We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free? ‘Jesus’ answer was, ‘I tell you the truth, every one who sins is a slave to sin’(Jn. 8:33-34).   The trouble is that we are still in this situation. Sin is simply too strong for us. I know that from time to time we can chalk up a victory. Every one of us knows what it is to overcome a bad habit at some time or other. It is not easy, but it can be done. What cannot be done is to break all our bad habits, so that there is no evil at all that we do. And because we cannot do this it becomes clear what Jesus means. To sin is to become the slave of sin. We who belong to God have gotten into the power of a strong enemy (evil) from which we cannot break free. If God wants us back, he must pay the price. And the great teaching of the New Testament is that God has paid the price. He has redeemed us. Christ has become our Redeemer. (Mk.10:45; Rom.6:14). pp.120-121

     Paul in Gal.3:13; Rom.3:24 are saying that Christ’s death on the cross meant that he bore the curse that would otherwise have rested on us. He suffered in our stead. He took what was coming to us. He bore the curse that sinners incurred and this is viewed as a paying of the price, an act of redemption.  That is an eternal redemption (Heb.9:12), the permanent consequences of the Christ’s payment of this price. Whereas Christ purchase the church with his own blood (Acts 20:28).  Redemption also means that when Christ comes we shall take our changed bodies into the kingdom. Christians have received the wonderful gift of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Spirit has ‘sealed’ them until the day of resurrection. (Eph. 4:30)   p.123

     Never take the redemption for granted. Never count it a common, ordinary thing. It is the most incredible thing that has ever happened. But it did happen. Accept it, then, with gratitude and with awe.  Live our life in reverent fear; for our redemption is not a matter of silver or gold or the like, but of ‘the precious blood of Christ’. (1 Pet.1:17-19).  ‘It is for freedom that Christ has set us free,’ wrote Paul. ‘Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by the yoke of slavery’ (Gal. 5: 1).  The Christian way is never a way of rigid conformity to a system. This does not mean that rules are never helpful. Most Christians find it very helpful to have some ‘rules of life’ which points them to useful paths of Christian service; but believers can never take any such rule as sacrosanct (sacred). They cannot subject themselves to regulations as though they were of the essence of the Christian life.  Believers are redeemed ‘for freedom’ and it is in freedom that they must live.  p.125-126

     There is another sense in which Christian is not free. He has been bought by Christ and belongs to him. He is Christ’s one. He is to live life in conformity with his new status. Paul can point out that the person who is a slave when called by Christ need not worry unduly about his status, for he is the Lord’s freeman, while the person who is free when called must always bear in mind that he is the Lord’s slave (1 Cor. 7:22). ‘You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men’ (verse 23).  In  Rev.5:9-10, it brings out the greatness of the price.  He who is the object of the worship of heaven ‘was slain’ with his blood he bought people for God. But in buying them he did not simply transfer them from one slavery to another. While in a sense they are his slaves, in another they are free. This is brought out with the affirmation that they are ‘a kingdom’ and ‘priests’ and that ‘they will reign’.  They have a royal state and are thus as far from being menial as can be conceived. They are priests and therefore have no need of priestly mediation. The death (of Christ) that bought them is all that is needed. And they will reign. They are not in bondage but on the contrary in a place of rule. The purchase that set them free from sin brought them into a glorious inheritance.  pp.127-128

In the New Testament there is never any hint of a recipient of the ransom. In other words we must understand redemption as a useful metaphor which enables us to see some aspects of Christ’s great saving work with clarity but which is not an exact description of the whole process of salvation. Whereby to look for a recipient of the ransom is illegitimate.  p.129

 6. Reconciliation

    Paul tells us that God reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sin against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God was making his appeal through us - we implore Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:18-20). The concept of reconciliation is taken by some scholars to be the best way of understanding the atonement. Reconciliation is a term we use quite commonly and in much the same way as people used it in Bible days. It means ‘restore friendship’, ‘make up after a quarrel’. It means good relationship which follow when an enmity has been overcome.  In strictness ‘reconciliation’ means more than ‘conciliation’.  p.132

  At the beginning in the Garden of Eden, God and man were in complete harmony (in perfect fellowship) with nothing spoil the picture. Nothing until sin came.  Fellowship is a wonderful thing. It is one of the enriching experiences of life and we are all indebted to it at some time or other. It enlarges our horizons and brings us well-being.  But fellowship is a fragile thing.  It must be looked after carefully or we lose it. For fellowship to exist there must be a right attitude on both sides. Without that we may have a kind of armed truce, a refraining from open conflict. But fellowship is more than that. It means warmth and goodwill on both sides. A one-sided kindliness is not fellowship.

     God’s purposes are always righteous. God’s purpose is that people have rich and full lives. But sinful man, because he acts evil, sets himself against those purposes. The result is the dreadful things the Bible speaks of as ‘the wrath of God’. God is angry when his righteous purposes are obstructed. We should be clear that sin always obstructs those purposes of God in some way.  We must not think that God does not mind this. He does. ‘The Bible makes it clear that God ‘expresses his wrath everyday’ (Ps. 7:11). For God it is important that we be the best that we can be, and when we make ourselves into lesser people we arouse his wrath and destroy all hope of fellowship with him. We bring about the same consequence when we sin against others for our sin is harming them in some way and affecting God’s purposes for them. pp.134-135

     ‘No man is an island.’ It is impossible for us to live to ourselves in such a way that the evil we do harms no-one but ourselves. Our lives affect other people for good or for evil. When we affect them for evil we are obstructing God’s purposes in them and arousing God’s wrath against ourselves. We are making ourselves into the enemies of God.  James tells us that ‘friendship of the world is enmity (echthra -hostility) towards God.’ From the standpoint of the saved Paul looks back and says, ‘For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!’ (Rom. 5:10). So he writes to the Colossians, ‘Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because evil behaviour. But now he has reconciled you..., (Col. 1:21-22).  Sinners are putting their effort into the opposite direction to that of God. We should be clear on this. The sin we do inevitably arouses the hostility of God.  There is truth here, for God is love and he is always ready to receive repentant sinners. But there is also error, for it is the demand of God that causes the hostility. In this connection it is not always taken into account that man has no conscious hostility to God. pp.136-137

Reconciliation took place when the root cause of the quarrel been dealt with.  Man’s sin is the root cause of God’s hostility.  It is always sin that arouses the wrath of God and that is the barrier in the way of good relations between God and man. If there is to be reconciliation then that barrier must be done away. God did not adopt half-measures in dealing with the problem. He sent his Son to live among men and show us how we ought to live. He sent him to die on a cross and so put away our sin. What reconciliation is saying is that the root cause has been dealt with; it is not saying how. But the cross means that sin has been taken away. There is no longer any barrier to fellowship between man and man’s Creator. Paul can write to the Romans, ‘we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation’ (Rom. 5:11). This implies that reconciliation had in some sense been accomplished by what Christ did on the cross and only then was it offered to those who received it. Reconciliation was wrought on the cross before there was anything but evil in the hearts of sinners. It is on the basis of a reconciliation that can ‘be spoken of as already accomplished that an offer can be made to men, who then ‘receive’ the reconciliation.  pp.138-139

     Paul has referred to Christ as dying for us ‘While we were still sinners’ (Rom. 5:8). This is true whatever our reaction. It is a statement about what God in Christ has done for the salvation of sinners, not about any human reaction. Reconciliation is a term that refers to nothing more than a change of attitude on the part of sinful man. One writer equates reconciliation with ‘the flooding of human hearts with the love of God, the disappearance of hostility, the joyful acceptance of forgiveness.  Another tells us that in Romans 3:23-26 as always, it is taken for granted that, if man repents, the ‘wrath’ of God dies. Yet another explains reconciliation in this way: ‘Reconciliation to God may be defined as a blessedness in our use of the world, our dealings with our fellow-men and our loyalty to His Kingdom.  Obviously there is some truth in all these statements. If anyone fills his heart with the love of God, accepts forgiveness joyfully and repents of his sin, if he recognizes God’s gracious relation to men and makes the appropriate response, nobody is going to quibble about his being reconciled to God.  It was Christ death on the cross that matter. As Paul put it, ‘we preach Christ crucified’ (I Cor. 1:23)  pp.140-141

     Making Peace: because of what Christ has done, and specifically because of his death, all that is changed. Now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ (Eph. 2:12-13). Christ identified with the peacemaking process that he can be identified with peace. We have no peace apart from him. He is our peace.   Peace in Hebrew is shalom which has positive meaning as it denotes not the absence of war or strife or anything, but the presence of God’s rich and full blessing. It was that wonderful thing that we speak of as ‘the peace of God that passes all understanding.’ When we read that Christ is our peace we are being told that completeness, wholeness, soundness in our lives depend on him. What he has done provides for our deep needs. We were alienated from God, but he has brought us near. He ‘has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility’ (Eph. 2:14).  p.142

God is characterized as ‘the God of ‘peace’ by the very fact that he performs a warlike action as in Romans16:20!  The overthrow of Satan was indeed a necessary ingredient in peace as the men of the New Testament understood it. Peace means the defeat of evil.  Peace means the presence of God. Christ ‘is our peace’.  p.143

Man’s part in reconciliation: Just as surely as it takes two to quarrel it takes two to make a reconciliation. God was never in the wrong, but he took the initiative all the same to get the cause of the enmity out of the way. He has dealt with our sin and from that point of view it can be said that the reconciliation is complete. The whole thing has been accomplished by Christ. Nothing remains to be done. And yet there is something to be done. This reconciliation has no effect in the life of any individual sinner until he receives it, until he himself is reconciled to God.  As Paul urged, ‘be reconciled to God’. (2 Cor. 5:19-20).  It is like the invitation in Revelation 22:17, ‘Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.’ There is mystery here, turning to Christ is never a purely human decision.  The saved are those whom God has elected to salvation. Our whole salvation is the salvation of thinking, feeling people, people to whom God has given wills of their own. That we must be reconciled brings before us the thought that in process of salvation those God-given wills must be used aright (correctly).   pp.145-146

   Reconciliation brings out six thoughts in particular: 1. Sin is the barrier; 2. Sin must be dealt with; 3. There is a real hostility between God and sinners; 4. Reconciliation is God’s work; 5. Reconciliation proceeds from the love of God and, 6. The reconciliation must be received.  pp.146-150

7. Propitiation (Turning away of wrath)

 The term ‘propitiation’ to most of us is plain incomprehensible. Replacements these days are the verb ‘to expiate’ and the noun expiation’(as in RSV, NEB, etc.). Propitiation means the turning away of anger; expiation is rather the making amends for a wrong. Propitiation is a personal word; one propitiates person. Expiation is an impersonal word; one expiates (apologise) a sin or a crime.  p.151

When we are speaking about Christ’s atoning work it makes a great deal of difference which meaning we understand. If we speak of expiation our meaning is that there is an impersonal process by which the effects of sin are nullified. We may be ready to think of the process as a remedy for defilement, a means of forgiveness, or a sacrifice that takes sin away but we resolutely refuse to see any reference to the wrath of God. But if we speak of propitiation we are thinking of a personal process. We are saying that God is angry when people sin and that, if they are to be forgiven, something must be done about that anger. We are saying further that the death of Christ is the means of removing the divine wrath from sinners. ‘Propitiation’ is not to be confused with ‘appeasement’. The sole proviso is that the essential meaning of the term must be preserved. p.152

Greek verb ‘hilaskomai’ traditionally been translated to ‘to propitiate’ or ‘to make propitiation’ and it mean turning away of anger.

The heathen (pagan) worshipped capricious (unpredictable) gods. The worshippers could never guess what is next. They could never tell when their gods would be angry, or what it was that annoyed them. The Hebrews were not in doubt. They knew that one thing and one thing alone aroused God’s anger and that was sin. They knew that God was always angry with sin - the reason there are so many references to the divine wrath is that they had so much experiential knowledge of the subject! God was angry with sin generally (Jb. 21:20), or with specific sins, including the shedding of blood, (Ezk. 16:38), adultery (Ezk. 23:25), afflicting the widow or orphan (Ex, 22:22- 24), violence (Ezk. 8:17-18), covetousness and falsehood (Je. 6:11-13). Most of all God’s wrath is aroused by idolatry and this is frequently brought out (Ex. 32:8-10; Dt. 6:14-15, etc.).  p.154

     The OT prophets emphasized the sovereignty of God. They saw him as active in the affairs of men.  They were sure that the punishment of sin was due to God himself.  They could ask, ‘When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it (Am. 3:6; cf. he flashes destruction on the stronghold’, Am. 5:9). They spoke of a God who could say, ‘I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD do all these things’ (Is. 45-7)   other passages stated clearly the wrath of God are (Is.30:27-30), (Ezk.7:8-9) and (Ps. 60:1-3).  A moral God will not allow man to sin with impunity. Because God is the moral God he is, he is angry when people sin, people whom he created for a higher destiny than that.  God is personally at work in the execution of his anger, just as he is in the showing of his mercy. Dodd distinguished between wrath and mercy, regarding wrath as an impersonal process and mercy as God’s personal action, as we have seen. But the prophets make no such distinction. Micah prays, ‘You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy’ (Mi. 7:18).  pp.155-156

     It is one of the facts of life that God is always hostile to evil. Wrath may be his strange work (Is. 28:21), with the implication that mercy is more congenial (pleasant). But it is his work. We do ourselves a disservice if we shut our eyes to the fact.  If people are to be forgiven, then the fact of that wrath must be taken into consideration. It does not fade away by being given some other name or regarded as an impersonal process. There are too many vividly personal passages for that. Perhaps we should notice that ten times God is said to be ‘slow to anger’ (Ex. 34:6, etc.). He is not an irascible (irritable) deity, ready to become angry at the slightest provocation. But, slow though it is, his anger is real. His wrath is certain if we continue in sin. The Old Testament is clear about the extent and the seriousness of God’s anger. But it is clear also that God will put that anger away. There is a paradox here which must be preserved if we are to understand biblical religion. God’s attitude to evil is not passive. He is vigorously opposed to it. But he is also a merciful God and it is to him that we owe the forgiveness which means that we are no longer the objects of his wrath. Wrath and mercy both belong to God.    p.157

     The word ‘wrath’ does not occur often in the Gospels. But it is there and the idea of the divine anger may be present when the word is not. John the Baptist warned his hearers of ‘the coming wrath’ (Mt. 3:7) and Jesus spoke of ‘wrath against this people’ (Lk. 21:23). In the Fourth Gospel we find that ‘God’s wrath remains on him who ‘rejects the Son’ (Jn. 3:36). Jesus himself is said to have been angry on one occasion (Mk. 3:5). More important, however, are passages which do not use the term "wrath’ but which clearly have this in mind. Thus Jesus spoke of hell quite a number of times and this implies the outworking of the wrath of God. He referred to ‘the fire of hell’ (Mt. 5:22, etc.), to eternal fire’ (Mt. 18:8), and to that dreadful place where "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched’ (Mk. 9:48). He spoke of ‘him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell’ (Lk. 12:5). There is much more about such themes as judgment, the outer darkness, the ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ and the like. It is impossible to take the Gospels seriously and yet maintain that Jesus did not teach the reality of the wrath of God. Paul tells us that God has set forth Christ as ‘a propitiation’ [hilasterion]. The word hilasterion clearly belongs to the propitiation word-group.  pp.165-166

     ‘Propitiation’ should not be watered down to ‘expiation’ or the like. They are fully personal words: they have to do with a person acts. They tell us of the wrath of a great God, whereas ‘expiation’ operates on a sub-personal level. It means than the wiping out of a crime or a sin or whatever. It does not take into account the fact that persons are involved. We use the term, not because it is a perfect word, but as Augustine said long ago, "lest we remain silent’. It is not ideal but it is the best we can do.  It expresses the strong and personal opposition to evil that God shows and the alternatives so far suggested do not. We have no better word for the divine repulsion against every evil thing.  pp.172-174

     If we are taking our Bible seriously we must realise that every sin displeasing to God and that unless something is done about the evil we have committed we face ultimately nothing less than the divine anger. God has given us every opportunity, but we have sinned. His wrath is the consequence. But, of course, the important teaching at which we have been looking in this chapter is ‘that the divine wrath is not the last Word. Part of what Christ did on the cross was propitiation, the taking of such action that wrath no longer works against us. He has made the offering that turns away wrath and as we put our trust in him we need fear it no more. This means a wonderful assurance of peace for the Christian. In the end we have nothing to fear, for ‘Christ is the propitiation for our sins’.  p.176

 8 Justification

    Justification has been the subject of a good deal of attention from Christian thinkers, especially from the Reformation period onwards.  With us legalism is a dirty word. We do not like what we see as excessive concentration on legal niceties (details) of no great significance. Attitude to law: we firmly believe that experts in legal matters can find all sorts of loopholes in the law to benefit themselves, but also all sorts of restrictions which the law provides to bind other people.  We do not like it and we tend to become suspicious of any emphasis on law. But for the men of the Bible law held a special place.  Strict justice was important. Especially was justice looked for in kings. It is worthy of notice, for example, that David practiced justice and judgment (2 Sa. 8:15).  It is not surprising that people who thought like this did not hesitate to use legal terms when writing about their God. Abraham’s question is recorded, ‘Will not the judge of all the earth do right [or do justice]? (Gn. 18:25). Here God is addressed with the legal title ‘Judge’, and in that capacity he is relied upon to act rightly (or with justice). A similar way of thinking underlies many statements about God in the Old Testament.  pp.178-179

     God works by law: God is seen to work by the method of law. ‘Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons, and the dove, the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration. But my people do not know the requirements of the LORD’ (Je. 8:7).  The Old Testament writers often prefer legal to any other imagery when they are referring to what God does. His delivering of Israel from Egypt might easily have been described as a defeat of Pharaoh or as a work of power, and it sometimes is. But it is also an act of justice.  God is depicted as the counsel for the prosecution. ‘Stand up, plead your case before the mountains; let the hills hear what you have to say. Hear, O mountains, the LORD’s accusation; listen, you everlasting foundations of the earth. For the LORD has a case against his people; he is lodging a charge against Israel’ (Mi. 6:1-2). Legal terms abound. The mountains are pictured as assessors or as a jury before whom the case will be heard. God sets forth his complaint in the accepted legal fashion.   There is a similar invitation to the nations generally: ‘let them come forward and speak; let us meet together at the place of judgment’ (Is. 41:1). Or again, ‘Present your case’, says the LORD. ‘Set forth your arguments,’ says Jacob’s King (Is. 41:21).  p.180

     Moses originated the law; he simply passed on what God said to him (e.g. Ex. 20:1-17). As for the priestly torah, this too came from God, as we see from some words in Hosea, ‘Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the torah of your God...’ (Ho. 4:6).

      The legal basis is plain in such a passage as Isaiah 5:22-23, though our translations do not always reflect this. NIV has it that the prophet says: ‘Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent.’  Similarly to justify the wicked and to condemn the just are both abominable to the LORD (Pr. 17:15). Old Testament writers delighted to apply legal categories to the working of God. We cannot say that this is confined to a few writers or a small section of the Old Testament. It is widespread, indeed practically universal. This has important consequences for our understanding of Hebrew religion. Israel’s neighbors appear to have had no such conception.  While ‘justify, ‘justification’ and the like may well be used in a variety of ways, including the ethical, the basic meaning is legal and it is the legal that gives us the clue to all the other uses.  pp.184-185

    In Ps. 143:2, the psalmist looks for mercy (verse 1), he relies on God’s ‘unfailing love’ (verse 8). And in the verse in which we are primarily interested he puts his plea in legal terms. He asks that he be not involved in a lawsuit with God, for he knows that he has no way of getting the verdict in such a lawsuit. Clearly he is not thinking of a literal lawsuit, but he uses the legal metaphor as a way of bringing out his deep conviction of his unworthiness. And this, he says, applies not only to him. No-one on earth will ever be accepted before God on the ground of his merits. We are all sinners and our sins prevent us from ever being justified in God’s’ sight.  Now and then there is a striking use of the terminology when it is God who is said to be justified. There is the well-known prayer in which the Psalmist addresses his Maker in these terms: ‘you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge’ (Ps. 51:4). There is no question of anyone putting God on trial. But the Psalmist can use the imagery of the law court to make his point. When anyone is acquitted in a court of law he is shown to have right on his side. So whenever God engages in judgment one result is that he is invariably shown to be in the right. He is ‘proved right’; he is ‘justified’.   p.185

God’s righteousness may well be exercised (and recognized) in his delivering of his people. So is it when the LORD says, ‘my salvation will last for ever, my righteousness will never fail’ (Is. 51:6). Or when the Psalmist prays, ‘My mouth will tell of your righteousness, of your salvation all day long’ (Ps. 71:15).  p.186  

    Abraham received his ‘right-standing’ not on account of any meritorious action but simply because he trusted God (Gn. 15:6).  They are exhorted to godly living, but it is God’s mercy that is decisive. A great passage in Isaiah makes it clear that God’s good gift is not earned by human merit: ‘Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost’ (Is. 55:1).  Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he ‘will freely pardon’ (Is. 55:6-7). Such a passage makes it very plain that the sinner may look to God for mercy and salvation. Salvation comes by God’s grace. This conviction is widespread.   p.188

  Paul says that God brought about salvation in Christ to demonstrate his justice [other translations have ‘righteousness’] at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies the man who has faith in Jesus’ (Rom. 3:26). The passage has the thoughts of redemption and of propitiation, but at this point there is strong emphasis on justification. No explanation is adequate which does not see God as shown to be just or righteous, legally in the right, in the way in which he provides salvation for sinners. p.195

      The law has no more claims on those whom Christ saves. Paul does not say this in set terms, but it does seem to be the meaning of his words. After what Christ has done the law has no more claims on those whose trust is in him. What is beyond all doubt is that Paul is saying that God forgives in a way which accords with right. God does not set aside the moral law when he forgives. It can never be said that he forgives simply because he is too strong for the devil. That would mean that in the end with God might is right. The language of justification is a perpetual protest against any such view. It provides an emphasis on the truth that our God is just, is righteous, that he has regard to moral considerations even when he saves people who do not deserve salvation. God saves in a way which is not only powerful but which is right.  p.195

The righteous shall live by faith (Rom. 1:17).  Faith is the hand that reaches out to God for salvation. Faith is no more than the means through which salvation is received.  Our salvations depend on God, who is love. (I Jn. 4:8, 16). But God’s love does not mean that God’s law is set aside. The two work together. And in this matter of justification we must bear in mind that the Saviour is one with the Judge and one also with the condemned. God wills that the penalty be borne, but he wills also to bear it himself. It is because God loves as he does that he provides the means whereby sinners may be justified.   p.197

   Justification is not something given indiscriminately to all. It is those who are in Christ Jesus for whom there is now no condemnation (Rom. 8: 1).  We are in trouble because God really means us to live up to the highest and best we know, not simply to find good excuses for not making it.  But when all the evidence goes to provide a verdict of guilty on Judgement Day, God intervened. To be justified we must come in faith, believing, trusting.  As we put our trust in Christ and we are justified, for a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law (Rom. 3:28). Justification touches our lives by bringing home to us two great truths. One is that we are saved in a way that is right, for the new and living way does not sit loose to moral realities. The other is that Christ’s justifying work is a challenge to us to believe. ‘It is with your heart that you believe and are justified.’   pp. 201-202