Thank you, Dissident Heart, for providing us with a very provocative twist to the atonement discussion. There are a number of things I would like to respond to…

above all, I really do appreciate the way your Scenario grabs us by the throat and shocks our hearts! How we need this! The cross ought to do this and more. But the Scenario scores highly for more than mere shock value. It represents the cross to us as the wretched, painful, loving involvement of God in creation’s awful, deathly, wretched predicament. (In this, at least, I find a vital concurrence with my own (incomplete) “Lamb”-centred thesis.)

with the same stroke D/H starkly and brilliantly reminds us that the cross is about reality and not religion. And this is wonderful; I want to shout this out: the MESSIAH’S CROSS is about REALITY, not RELIGION! (selah)

I also appreciate the clarity with which Dissident Heart sees this Reality echoing so loudly towards us that we have only one hope: to join the Messiah in the wretchedness of the cross; the bloody cross. The corresponding echoes with the theology of the apostle Paul, still sounding so profoundly centuries after their being written, should be obvious. Radical hope indeed!

Well, done and thank you again, for all of that.

Somewhat less enthusiastically, I must note that the Scenario - as presently communicated - is predicated on a principle which is probably untenable, at least for those who are willing to draw upon Scripture as the principal revelatory statement on the character of Yaweh, the Creator.

This principle is sometimes known as the “demonic-in-Yahweh” theory and it basically proposes that Yahweh was thought of as the originator of evil and Satan his ‘alter ego,’ throughout much of Old Testament narrative. Satan, in this scenario is likened to Yahweh’s “public prosecutor,” “legal arm,” or the one in charge of “quality control and testing,” a being held to be leaning towards malevolence, but one basically doing his job. A number of “proof texts” are utilised to uphold this theorem (or close alternatives): Isaiah 45.7, Lamentations 3.38 and Amos 3.6 being amongst the most stridently and obviously used.

Before responding to the first of these in detail, as an example of why I - and many others - hold them to be ill used in this capacity, I would like to suggest again the importance of taking a panoramic view of Scripture whenever we find ourselves faced with a whirlpool such as this, which would love to suck us in…

Probably the greatest commentary upon the “problem of evil” provided in the annals of the Hebrew scripture is Job. The demonic-in-Yahweh theory holds God as the ulitmate author of Job’s evil. However, the whole panoramic view of the book of Job, extraordinarily and dramatically summed up in the final four chapters, is that, while the world, the creation, the cosmos is so complex and involved, as human beings, we simply cannot understand it in it’s apparently chaotic, yet poetic, entirety (even while we may scientifically explain the workings of elements within it) - we simply aren’t morally and intellectually equipped to do so - in contrast, no such limit is placed upon our ability to interpret and understand the character of Yahweh and our panoramic view of the book of Job specifically and of Scripture generally provides an uneqivocable presentation that Yahweh, the Creator is, in fact, perfect: perfectly hold, righteous, loving and just

(Deuteronomy 32.4, 35; 2 Sam 22.32; Ps 48.1, 10; 89.1; 92.10; Mt 5.48; see 2 Chron 19.7; Ps 18.30; 33.5; 1 Sam 2.2; 1 Chron 16.10).

Therefore, in summary at this point, I would simply say that:

“postulating that evil had its origins in Yahweh blatantly contradicts the central teaching of Scripture concerning Yahweh’s character… the “demonic-in-Yahweh” position is therefore not an option for one who holds to a high view of Scripture… While we must make liberal allowances for later revelation to augment earlier revelation.. (nevertheless) all historical and philosophical arguments that favour the inspiration of Scripture must be regarded as indirect refutation of this position”

(taken from God at War, the Bible and Spiritual Conflict, Gregoray A Boyd (IVP, Illinois, 1997))

Finally, to refute the particular basis provided from Isaiah 45.7, I quote from the same text:

Isaiah 45.7 records the Lord as saying, “I form the light and create darkness, I make weal and woe; I the Lord do all these things.” The “demonic-in-Yahweh” theorists have made this one of their loci classici. If the creator of evil and woe is God, there is no room left for a devil…

Such an interpretation, however, misses the explicitly historical and soteriological (hence noncosmological) intent of this passage. The context… is specifically about the future deliverance of the children of Israel out of Babylon; it is not concerned with God’s cosmic creative activity. Hence the “light” and “darkness” of this passage… denote “liberation” and “captivity” (as in Is 9.1, Lam 3.2) and thus refer to “YHWH’s impending salvific intervention on behalf of his people.” The “prosperity and disaster” refer to Yahweh’s plans to bless Israel and to curse Babylon.

Creating “light and darkness” and bringing “weal and woe” then, are not abitary activities, but rather flow from the moral character of God in direct response to the unjust captivity of his people in Babylon. The Lord creates the light and darkness, properity and disaster in just response to human behaviour. The impication of this verse.. is precisely the opposite of what “demonic-in-Yahweh” theorist suggest.”

Much more could be said about this, but the essence is set forth. I hope that Dissident Heart may be tempted to reconsider the basis for his wild and striking theorom: i.e., the “guilt” of God, as he sets it forth. For me personally, this element within it actually lessens the full impact of the Scenario, because it undermines my view of God too much.

Is such a representation of the Scenario possible while still maintaining it’s capacity to grab us by the throat? I hope and believ so. Already, when D/H explained his understanding of God’s “accountability” and “responsibility” in particular, in his response to Peter, I can begin to see room for such a re-presentation: the parent who gives makes themeselves accountable, who takes responsibility for the wrong and damaging actions of their child etc…

I look forward to hearing more from the dissident heart of our contributor….