Trying to find an internship in Business Operations, Finance, Supply Chain and Operations Management

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

The main reason Jesus died on the cross was to defeat Satan and set us free from his oppressive rule. Everything else that Jesus accomplished was to be understood as an aspect and consequence of this victory (e.g., Recapitulation, Moral Influence, etc.).
This understanding of why Jesus had to die is called the Christus Victor (Latin for “Christ is Victorious”) view of the atonement. But, what exactly was Christ victorious from, and why? To find out the answers to these questions, we have to turn to the Old Testament, as that's what the apostles would often allude to in order to properly teach their audience the message they were trying to convey (Rom. 15:4).
The OT is full of conflict between the Father (YHVH) and false gods, between YHVH and cosmic forces of chaos. The Psalms speak of this conflict between YHVH and water monsters of the deeps (an ancient image for chaos) (Psa. 29:3-4; 74:10-14; 77:16, 19; 89:9-10; 104:2-9, etc).
The liberation of Israel from Egypt wasn’t just a conflict between Pharaoh and Moses. It was really between YHVH and the false gods of Egypt.
Regardless of whether you think the aforementioned descriptions are literal or metaphorical, the reality that the Old Testament describes is that humanity lived in a “cosmic war zone.”
The Christus Victor motif is about Christ reigning victorious over wicked principalities and Satan's kingdom, and is strongly emphasized throughout the New Testament. Scripture declares that Jesus came to drive out "the prince of this world” (John 12:31), to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), to “destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14) and to “put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Jesus came to overpower the “strong man” (Satan) who held the world in bondage and worked with his Church to plunder his "palace" (Luke 11:21-22). He came to end the reign of the cosmic “thief” who seized the world to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy” the life YHVH intended for us (John 10:10). Jesus came and died on the cross to disarm “the principalities and powers” and make a “shew of them openly [i.e., public spectacle]” by “triumphing over them in [the cross]” (Col. 2:15).
Beyond these explicit statements, there are many other passages that express the Christus Victor motif as well. For example, the first prophecy in the Bible foretells that a descendent of Eve (Jesus) would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The first Christian sermon ever preached proclaimed that Jesus in principle conquered all YHVH's enemies (Acts 2:32-36). And the single most frequently quoted Old Testament passage by New Testament authors is Psalm 110:1 which predicts that Christ would conquer all YHVH’s opponents. (Psalm 110 is quoted or alluded to in Matthew 22:41-45; 26:64, Mark 12:35-37; 14:62, Luke 20:41-44; 22:69, Acts 5:31; 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, 1st Corinthians 15:22-25, Ephesians 1:20, Hebrews 1:3; 1:13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; 8:1; 10:12-13, 1st Peter 3:22, and Revelation 3:21.) According to New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman, the frequency with which New Testament authors cite this Psalm is the greatest proof that Christ’s “victory over the angel powers stands at the very center of early Christian thought.”
Because of man's rebellion, the Messiah's coming involved a rescue mission that included a strategy for vanquishing the powers of darkness.
Since YHVH is a God of love who gives genuine “say-so” to both angels and humans, YHVH rarely accomplishes His providential plans through coercion. YHVH relies on His infinite wisdom to achieve His goals. Nowhere is YHVH's wisdom put more on display than in the manner in which He outsmarted Satan and the powers of evil, using their own evil to bring about their defeat.
Most readers probably know the famous story from ancient Greece about the Trojan Horse. To recap the story, Troy and Greece had been locked in a ten-year-long vicious war when, according to Homer and Virgil, the Greeks came up with a brilliant idea. They built an enormous wooden horse, hid soldiers inside and offered it to the Trojans as a gift, claiming they were conceding defeat and going home. The delighted Trojans accepted the gift and proceeded to celebrate by drinking themselves into a drunken stupor. When night came and the Trojan warriors were too wasted to fight, the Greeks exited the horse, unlocked the city gates to quietly let all their compatriots in, and easily conquered the city, thus winning the war.
Historians debate whether any of this actually happened. But either way, as military strategies go, it’s brilliant.
Now, there are five clues in the New Testament that suggest YHVH was using something like this Trojan Horse strategy against the powers when he sent Jesus into the world:
1) The Bible tells us that YHVH's victory over the powers of darkness was achieved by the employment of YHVH’s wisdom, and was centered on that wisdom having become reality in Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 3:9-10, Col. 1:26). It also tells us that, for some reason, this Christ-centered wisdom was kept “secret and hidden” throughout the ages. It’s clear from this that YHVH's strategy was to outsmart and surprise the powers by sending Jesus.
2) While humans don’t generally know Jesus’ true identity during his ministry, demons do. They recognize Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, but, interestingly enough, they have no idea what he’s doing (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:7, Luke 8:21). Again, the wisdom of YHVH in sending Jesus was hidden from them.
3) We’re told that, while humans certainly share in the responsibility for the crucifixion, Satan and the powers were working behind the scenes to bring it about (John 13:27 cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-8). These forces of evil helped orchestrate the crucifixion.
4) We’re taught that if the “princes of this world [age]” had understood the secret wisdom of YHVH, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8 cf. vss 6-7). Apparently, Satan and the powers regretted orchestrating Christ’s crucifixion once they learned of the wisdom of YHVH that was behind it.
5) Finally, we can begin to understand why the powers came to regret crucifying “the Lord of glory” when we read that it was by means of the crucifixion that the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us [i.e., the charge of our legal indebtedness]” was “[taken] out of the way [i.e., canceled]” as the powers were disarmed. In this way Christ “triumph[ed] over” the powers by "his cross” and even “made a shew of them openly” (Col. 2:14-15). Through Christ’s death and resurrection YHVH's enemies were vanquished and placed under his Messiah's feet, and ultimately His own in the end (1 Cor. 15:23-28).
Putting these five clues together, we can discern YHVH's Trojan Horse strategy in sending Jesus.
The powers couldn’t discern why Jesus came because YHVH's wisdom was hidden from them. YHVH's wisdom was motivated by unfathomable love, and since Satan and the other powers were evil, they lacked the capacity to understand it. Their evil hearts prevented them from suspecting what YHVH was up to.
What the powers did understand was that Jesus was mortal. This meant he was killable. Lacking the capacity to understand that this was the means by which YHVH would ultimately bring about the defeat of death (and thus, pave the road for the resurrection itself), they never suspected that making Jesus vulnerable to their evil might actually be part of YHVH's infinitely wise plan.
And so they took the bait (or "ransom"; Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:5-6). Utilizing Judas and other willing human agents, the powers played right into YHVH’s secret plan and orchestrated the crucifixion of the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23; 4:28). YHVH thus brilliantly used the self-inflicted incapacity of evil to understand love against itself. And, like light dispelling darkness, the unfathomably beautiful act of YHVH's love in sending the willing Messiah as a "ransom" to these blood-thirsty powers defeated them. The whole creation was in principle freed and reconciled to YHVH, while everything written against us humans was nailed to the cross, thus robbing the powers of the only legal claim they had on us. They were “spoiled [i.e., disempowered]” (Col. 2:14-15).
As happened to the Trojans in accepting the gift from the Greeks, in seizing on Christ’s vulnerability and orchestrating his crucifixion, the powers unwittingly cooperated with YHVH to unleash the one power in the world that dispels all evil and sets captives free. It’s the power of self-sacrificial love.

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

For the sake of keeping this already lengthy post as short as possible I'm not going to spend too much time on why exactly PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) is inconsistent with Scripture, but I'll go ahead and point out the main reasons why I believe this is so, and let the reader look further into this subject by themselves, being that there are many resources out there which have devoted much more time than I ever could here in supporting this premise.

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:"-1 Corinthians 5:7

The Passover is one of the two most prominent images in the New Testament given as a comparison to Christ's atonement and what it accomplished, (the other most common image being the Day of Atonement sacrifice).
In the Passover, the blood of the lamb on the door posts of the Hebrews in the book of Exodus was meant to mark out those who were YHVH's, not be a symbol of PSA, as the lamb itself was not being punished by God in place of the Hebrews, but rather the kingdom of Egypt (and thus, allegorically speaking, the kingdom of darkness which opposed YHVH) was what was being judged and punished, because those who were not "covered" by the blood of the lamb could be easily identified as not part of God's kingdom/covenant and liberated people.
Looking at the Day of Atonement sacrifice (which, again, Christ's death is repeatedly compared to throughout the New Testament), this ritual required a ram, a bull, and two goats (Lev. 16:3-5). The ram was for a burnt offering intended to please God (Lev. 16:3-4). The bull served as a sin offering for Aaron, the high priest, and his family. In this case, the sin offering restored the priest to ritual purity, allowing him to occupy sacred space and be near YHVH’s presence. Two goats taken from "the congregation” were needed for the single sin offering for the people (Lev. 16:5). So why two goats?
The high priest would cast lots over the two goats, with one chosen as a sacrifice “for the Lord” (Lev. 16:8). The blood of that goat would purify the people. The second goat was not sacrificed or designated “for the Lord.” On the contrary, this goat—the one that symbolically carried the sins away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness—was “for Azazel” (Lev. 16:8-10).
What—or who—is Azazel?
The Hebrew term azazel (עזאזל) occurs four times in Leviticus 16 but nowhere else in most people's canon of the Bible, (and I say "most people's canon," because some people do include 1 Enoch in their canon of Scripture, which of course goes into great detail about this "Azazel" figure). Many translations prefer to translate the term as a phrase, “the goat that goes away,” which is the same idea conveyed in the King James Version’s “scapegoat.” Other translations treat the word as a name: Azazel. The “scapegoat” option is possible, but since the phrase “for Azazel” parallels the phrase “for YHVH” (“for the Lord”), the wording suggests that two divine figures are being contrasted by the two goats.
A strong case can be made for translating the term as the name Azazel. Ancient Jewish texts show that Azazel was understood as a demonic figure associated with the wilderness. The Mishnah (ca. AD 200; Yoma 6:6) records that the goat for Azazel was led to a cliff and pushed over, ensuring it would not return with its death. This association of the wilderness with evil is also evident in the New Testament, as this was where Jesus met the devil (Matt. 4:1). Also, in Leviticus 17:1-7 we learn that some Israelites had been accustomed to sacrificing offerings to "devils" (alternatively translated as “goat demons”). The Day of Atonement replaced this illegitimate practice.
The second goat was not sent into the wilderness as a sacrifice to a foreign god or demon. The act of sending the live goat out into the wilderness, which was unholy ground, was to send the sins of the people where they belonged—to the demonic domain. With one goat sacrificed to bring purification and access to YHVH and one goat sent to carry the people’s sins to the demonic domain, this annual ritual reinforced the identity of the true God and His mercy and holiness.
When Jesus died on the cross for all of humanity’s sins, he was crucified outside the city, paralleling the sins of the people being cast to the wilderness via the goat to Azazel. Jesus died once for all sinners, negating the need for this ritual.
As previously stated, the goat which had all the sin put on it was sent alive off to the wilderness, while the blood of the goat which was blameless was used to purify the temple and the people. Penal substitution would necessitate the killing of the goat which had the sin put on it.
Mind you, this is the only sacrificial ritual of any kind in the Torah in which sins are placed on an animal. The only time it happens is this, and that animal is not sacrificed. Most PSA proponents unwittingly point to this ritual as evidence of their view, despite it actually serving as evidence to the contrary, because most people don't read their Old Testament and don't familiarize themselves with the "boring parts" like Leviticus (when it's actually rather important to do so, since that book explains how exactly animal offerings were to be carried out and why they were done in the first place).
In the New Testament, Christ's blood was not only meant to mark out those who were his, but also expel the presence of sin and ritual uncleanness so as to make the presence of YHVH manifest in the believer's life. Notice how God's wrath isn't poured out on Christ in our stead on this view, but rather His wrath was poured out on those who weren't covered, and the presence of sin and evil were merely removed by that which is pure and blameless (Christ's blood) for the believer.
All this is the difference between expiation and propitiation.

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

When the New Testament writers talked about “the gospel,” they referred not to the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide–the proposition that if we will stop trying to win God’s favor and only just believe that God has exchanged our sin for Christ’s perfect righteousness, then in God’s eyes we will have the perfect righteousness required both for salvation and for assuaging our guilty consciences–but rather they referred to the simple but explosive proposition Kyrios Christos, “Christ is Lord.” That is to say, the gospel was, properly speaking, the royal announcement that Jesus of Nazareth was the God of Israel’s promised Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
The New Testament writers were not writing in a cultural or linguistic vacuum and their language of euangelion (good news) and euangelizomai would have been understood by their audience in fairly specific ways. Namely, in the Greco-Roman world for which the New Testament authors wrote, euangelion/euangelizomai language typically had to do with either A) the announcement of the accession of a ruler, or B) the announcement of a victory in battle, and would probably have been understood along those lines.
Let’s take the announcements of a new ruler first. The classic example of such a language is the Priene Calendar Inscription, dating to circa 9 BC, which celebrates the rule (and birthday) of Caesar Augustus as follows:
"It was seeming to the Greeks in Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since Providence, which has ordered all things of our life and is very much interested in our life, has ordered things in sending Augustus, whom she filled with virtue for the benefit of men, sending him as a savior [soter] both for us and for those after us, him who would end war and order all things, and since Caesar by his appearance [epiphanein] surpassed the hopes of all those who received the good tidings [euangelia], not only those who were benefactors before him, but even the hope among those who will be left afterward, and the birthday of the god [he genethlios tou theou] was for the world the beginning of the good tidings [euangelion] through him; and Asia resolved it in Smyrna."
The association of the term euangelion with the announcement of Augustus’ rule is clear enough and is typical of how this language is used elsewhere. To give another example, Josephus records that at the news of the accession of the new emperor Vespasian (69 AD) “every city kept festival for the good news (euangelia) and offered sacrifices on his behalf.” (The Jewish War, IV.618). Finally, a papyrus dating to ca. 498 AD begins:
"Since I have become aware of the good news (euangeliou) about the proclamation as Caesar (of Gaius Julius Verus Maximus Augustus)…"
This usage occurs also in the Septuagint, the Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures. For instance LXX Isaiah 52:7 reads, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (euangelizomenou), who publishes peace, who brings good news (euangelizomenos) of salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.'" Similarly, LXX Isaiah 40:9-10 reads:

"…Go up on a high mountain, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos) to Sion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos); lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Ioudas, “See your God!” Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and his arm with authority (kyrieias)…."-NETS, Esaias 40:9-10

This consistent close connection between euangelion/euangelizomai language and announcements of rule strongly suggests that many of the initial hearers/readers of the early Christians’ evangelical language would likely have understood that language as the announcement of a new ruler (see, e.g., Acts 17:7), and, unless there is strong NT evidence to the contrary, we should presume that the NT writers probably intended their language to be so understood.
However, the other main way in which euangelion/euangelizomai language was used in the Greco-Roman world was with reference to battle reports, announcements of victory in war. A classic example of this sort of usage can be found in LXX 2 Samuel 18:19ff, where David receives word that his traitorous son, Absalom, has been defeated in battle. Euangelion/euangelizomai is used throughout the passage for the communications from the front.
As already shown throughout this post, the NT speaks of Jesus’s death and resurrection as a great victory over the powers that existed at that time and, most importantly, over death itself. Jesus’ conquest of the principalities and powers was the establishment of his rule and comprehensive authority over heaven and earth, that is, of his Lordship over all things (again, at that time).
This was the content of Paul's gospel message...

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

The following quotation is from The Gospel Coalition, and I believe it to be a decently accurate summary of the NPP (New Perspective on Paul), despite it being from a source which is in opposition to it:

The New Perspective on Paul, a major scholarly shift that began in the 1980s, argues that the Jewish context of the New Testament has been wrongly understood and that this misunderstand[ing] has led to errors in the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification. According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

I believe what's called the "new perspective" is actually rather old, and that the Reformers' view of Paul is what is truly new, being that the Lutheran understanding of Paul is simply not Biblical.
The Reformation perspective understands Paul to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to earn their salvation through works. However, supporters of the NPP argue that Paul has been misread. We contend he was actually combating Jews who were boasting because they were God's people, the "elect" or the "chosen ones." Their "works," so to speak, were done to show they were God's covenant people and not to earn their salvation.
The key questions involve Paul’s view(s) of the law and the meaning of the controversy in which Paul was engaged. Paul strongly argued that we are “justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16b). Since the time of Martin Luther, this has been understood as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit favor before God. Judaism was cast in the role of the medieval "church," and so Paul’s protests became very Lutheran, with traditional-Protestant theology reinforced in all its particulars (along with its limitations) as a result. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul’s debate will answer the questions we have about what exactly the apostle meant by the phrase "works of the law," along with other phrases often used as support by the Reformers for their doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), like when Paul mentions "the righteousness of God."
Obviously an in-depth analysis of the Pauline corpus and its place in the context of first-century Judaism would take us far beyond the scope of this brief post. We can, however, quickly survey the topography of Paul’s thought in context, particularly as it has emerged through the efforts of recent scholarship, and note some salient points which may be used as the basis of a refurbished soteriology.
[Note: The more popular scholars associated with the NPP are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Dunn was the first to coin the term "The New Perspective" in a 1983 Manson Memorial Lecture, The New Perspective on Paul and the Law.]
Varying authors since the early 1900's have brought up the charge that Paul was misread by those in the tradition of Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers. Yet, it wasn't until E.P. Sanders' 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, that scholars began to pay much attention to the issue. In his book, Sanders argues that the Judaism of Paul's day has been wrongly criticized as a religion of "works-salvation" by those in the Protestant tradition.
A fundamental premise in the NPP is that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. Sander's puts it clearly:
"On the point at which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism - grace and works - Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism... Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works'...God saves by grace, but... within the framework established by grace he rewards good deeds and punishes transgression." (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 543)
N.T. Wright adds that, "we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism," (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 32).
Sanders has coined a now well-known phrase to describe the character of first-century Palestinian Judaism: “covenantal nomism.” The meaning of “covenantal nomism” is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.
If covenantal nomism was operating as the primary category under which Jews understood the Law, then when Jews spoke of obeying commandments, or when they required strict obedience of themselves and fellow Jews, it was because they were "keeping the covenant," rather than out of legalism.
More recently, N.T. Wright has made a significant contribution in his little book, What Saint Paul Really Said. Wright’s focus is the gospel and the doctrine of justification. With incisive clarity he demonstrates that the core of Paul’s gospel was not justification by faith, but the death and resurrection of Christ and his exaltation as Lord. The proclamation of the gospel was the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, the Messiah who fulfilled Israel’s expectations. Romans 1:3-4, not 1:16-17, is the gospel, contrary to traditional thinking. Justification is not the center of Paul’s thought, but an outworking of it:
"[T]he doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ….Let us be quite clear. ‘The gospel’ is the announcement of Jesus’ lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. ‘Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other." (pp. 132, 133)
Wright brings us to this point by showing what “justification” would have meant in Paul’s Jewish context, bound up as it was in law-court terminology, eschatology, and God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant.
Specifically, Wright explodes the myth that the pre-Christian Saul was a pious, proto-Pelagian moralist seeking to earn his individual passage into heaven. Wright capitalizes on Paul’s autobiographical confessions to paint rather a picture of a zealous Jewish nationalist whose driving concern was to cleanse Israel of Gentiles as well as Jews who had lax attitudes toward the Torah. Running the risk of anachronism, Wright points to a contemporary version of the pre-Christian Saul: Yigal Amir, the zealous Torah-loyal Jew who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for exchanging Israel’s land for peace. Wright writes:
"Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, ahistorical system of salvation... They were interested in the salvation which, they believed, the one true God had promised to his people Israel." (pp. 32, 33)
Wright maintains that as a Christian, Paul continued to challenge paganism by taking the moral high ground of the creational monotheist. The doctrine of justification was not what Paul preached to the Gentiles as the main thrust of his gospel message; it was rather “the thing his converts most needed to know in order to be assured that they really were part of God’s people” after they had responded to the gospel message.
Even while taking the gospel to the Gentiles, however, Paul continued to criticize Judaism “from within” even as he had as a zealous Pharisee. But whereas his mission before was to root out those with lax attitudes toward the Torah, now his mission was to demonstrate that God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness) has already been revealed in Jesus Christ.
At this point Wright carefully documents Paul’s use of the controversial phrase “God’s righteousness” and draws out the implications of his meaning against the background of a Jewish concept of justification. The righteousness of God and the righteousness of the party who is “justified” cannot be confused because the term bears different connotations for the judge than for the plaintiff or defendant. The judge is “righteous” if his or her judgment is fair and impartial; the plaintiff or defendant is “righteous” if the judge rules in his or her favor. Hence:
"If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favor. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works." (p. 98)
However, Wright makes the important observation that even with the forensic metaphor, Paul’s theology is not so much about the courtroom as it is about God’s love.
Righteousness is not an impersonal, abstract standard, a measuring-stick or a balancing scale. That was, and still is, a Greek view. Righteousness, Biblically speaking, grows out of covenant relationship. We forgive because we have been forgiven (Matt. 18:21-35); “we love" because God “first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10, Gal 5:14, Jam. 2:8). Paul even looked forward to a day when “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10), and he acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. Paul did in fact testify of his clear conscience: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation [i.e., behavior] in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” (2 Cor. 1:12). He was aware that he had not yet “attained” (Phil. 3:12-14), that he still struggled with the flesh, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.
Wright went on to flesh out the doctrine of justification in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. The “works of the law” are not proto-Pelagian efforts to earn salvation, but rather “sabbath [keeping], food-laws, circumcision” (p. 132). Considering the controversy in Galatia, Wright writes:
"Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God….The problem he addresses is: should his ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not? Now this question is by no means obviously to do with the questions faced by Augustine and Pelagius, or by Luther and Erasmus. On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way? Circumcision is not a ‘moral’ issue; it does not have to do with moral effort, or earning salvation by good deeds. Nor can we simply treat it as a religious ritual, then designate all religious ritual as crypto-Pelagian good works, and so smuggle Pelagius into Galatia as the arch-opponent after all. First-century thought, both Jewish and Christian, simply doesn’t work like that…. [T]he polemic against the Torah in Galatians simply will not work if we ‘translate’ it into polemic either against straightforward self-help moralism or against the more subtle snare of ‘legalism’, as some have suggested. The passages about the law only work — and by ‘work’ I mean they will only make full sense in their contexts, which is what counts in the last analysis — when we take them as references to the Jewish law, the Torah, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race." (pp. 120-122)
The debate about justification, then, “wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” (p. 119)
To summarize the theology of Paul in his epistles, the apostle mainly spent time arguing to those whom he were sending letters that salvation in Christ was available to all men without distinction. Jews and Gentiles alike may accept the free gift; it was not limited to any one group. Paul was vehement about this, especially in his letter to the Romans. As such, I will finish this post off by summarizing the letter itself, so as to provide Biblical support for the premises of the NPP and for what the scholars I referenced have thus far argued.
After his introduction in the epistle to an already believing and mostly Gentile audience (who would've already been familiar with the gospel proclaimed in verses 3-4), Paul makes a thematic statement in 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This statement is just one of many key statements littered throughout the book of Romans that give us proper understanding of the point Paul wished to make to the interlocutors of his day, namely, salvation is available to all, whether Jew or Gentile.
In 1:16 Paul sets out a basic theme of his message in the letter to the Romans. All who believed, whether they be Jew or Gentile, were saved by the power of the gospel. The universal nature of salvation was explicitly stated. The gospel saved all without distinction, whether Jew or Greek; salvation was through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Immediately after this thematic declaration, Paul undertakes to show the universal nature of sin and guilt. In 1:18-32 Paul shows how the Gentile is guilty before God. Despite evidence of God and his attributes, which is readily available to all, they have failed to honor YHVH as God and have exchanged His glory for idolatrous worship and self-promotion. As a consequence, God handed them over in judgment (1:18-32). Paul moves to denunciation of those who would judge others while themselves being guilty of the very same offenses (2:1-5) and argues that all will be judged according to their deeds (2:6). This judgment applies to all, namely, Jew and Greek (2:9-10). This section serves as somewhat of a transition in Paul’s argument. He has highlighted the guilt of the Gentiles (1:18ff) and will shortly outline the guilt of the Jew (2:17-24). The universal statement of 2:1-11 sets the stage for Paul’s rebuke of Jewish presumption. It was not possession of the Law which delivered; it was faithful obedience. It is better to have no Law and yet to obey the essence of the Law (2:12-16) than to have the Law and not obey (2:17-3:4). Paul then defends the justice of God’s judgment (3:5-8), which leads to the conclusion that all (Jew and Gentile) are guilty before God (3:9).
Paul argues that it was a mistaken notion to think that salvation was the prerogative of the Jew only. This presumption is wrong for two reasons. First, it leads to the mistaken assumption that only Jews were eligible for this vindication (Paul deals with this misunderstanding in chapter 4 where he demonstrates that Abraham was justified by faith independently of the Law and is therefore the father of all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike). Second, it leads to the equally mistaken conclusion that all who were Jews are guaranteed of vindication. Paul demonstrates how this perspective, which would call God’s integrity into question since Paul was assuming many Jews would not experience this vindication, was misguided. He did this by demonstrating that it was never the case that all physical descendants of Israel (Jacob) were likewise recipients of the promise. In the past (9:6-33) as in the present (at that time; 11:1-10), only a remnant was preserved and only a remnant would experience vindication. Paul also argued that the unbelief of national Israel (the non-remnant) had the purpose of extending the compass of salvation. The unbelief of one group made the universal scope of the gospel possible. This universalism was itself intended to bring about the vindication of the unbelieving group (11:11-16). As a result of faith, all (Jew and Gentile) could be branches of the olive tree (11:17-24). Since faith in Christ was necessary to remain grafted into the tree, no one could boast of his position. All, Jew and Gentile alike, were dependent upon the mercy and grace of God. As a result of God’s mysterious plan, He would bring about the vindication of His people (11:25-27). [Note: It is this author's belief that this vindication occurred around 66-70 AD, with the Parousia of Christ's Church; this author is Full-Preterist in their Eschatology.]

Kerala's growing digital landscape makes it a great location for aspiring marketers to succeed. There is a new possibility for career progression in the state due to the spike in demand for educated digital experts. To harness this momentum effectively, it's imperative to enroll in the best diploma in digital marketing course available. At Unlearn Academy, we pride ourselves on offering thetop digital marketing diploma program in Kerala,meticulously designed to equip students with the knowledge and skills demanded by the industry. Join us and unlock your potential in the ever-evolving world of digital marketing.
At Unlearn, we take pride in offering the best diploma in digital marketing course in Kerala. Our course is carefully designed to give students the knowledge and abilities they need to succeed in the digital world.Our extensive curriculum covers everything, from using social media to create engaging content to learning techniques for SEO.
Our dedication to offering practical experience and training relevant to the industry is what makes us unique. Our experienced faculty, which is made up of seasoned experts, makes sure that students gain real-world experience and useful insights. Furthermore, our cutting-edge facilities foster an immersive learning atmosphere that supports development and creativity.
By choosing our diploma program, you gain access to a network of like-minded individuals and industry experts. Our strong alumni network and industry connections open doors to exciting career opportunities upon graduation. Whether you aspire to work for leading brands, digital agencies, or start your own venture, our diploma in digital marketing will pave the way for your success.
In today's digital age, having a diploma in digital marketing is more than just a credential, it's a gateway to endless possibilities. Don't miss out on the opportunity to unleash your potential and embark on a fulfilling career journey. Enroll in the best diploma in digital marketing course in Kerala at Unlearn and chart your course to success today.

Dramatic title, but I can't really explain it that well in few words. I also couldn't figure out a Subreddit that this would fit on, I think this one is best.
This one's a long one. TL;DR at bottom, but some details are important.
A bit of backstory first.
I'm a recently graduated HS Senior, headed to university in Fall. Around March, I applied to work at a mid-sized stadium in my area for a summer job-- I have about 2 years of stable retail experience, plus ServSafe certification and some good credentials outside of that. I've left almost all my jobs on good terms and I do my work fine. Never had any complaints.
I am a black woman. That is relevant to my story. I also have a very "white-sounding" name. For the sake of my privacy, let's say it's Sarah McIntyre. It's got the same vibe. I also have a "white-sounding" voice, especially over the phone. A lot of my family pokes fun at it, and it's not a huge deal.
So, I'm applying to this job, and the online application is pretty sparse. Few questions about my experience, age, and contact info. Nothing about my race at all. I apply, get a request for a phone interview, and hop on a call a few days later. My manager loves me. We have a great interview. She emails me a day later and says I got the job, and my orientation is in a week.
Orientation goes on, it's in a pretty large group and she doesn't address any of us directly or even ask for names, but I noticed her giving me a bit of a weird look. I figured it was about my hair which is dyed bright green so whatever.
We start working, and she's just very weird to me the whole time. Gives me weird looks, doesn't answer my questions, always watching me while I'm working at the concessions register. She doesn't do this with any of the other girls there. Concessions is about five other girls, all around my age. All of them are first-years at the stadium.
I get ready for work the next day, and I get a call from my Manager:
"Hey, OP. Don't come in today." "Oh? Is the game called off?" "No. Someone else is covering you. Bye."
Which was incredibly weird to me, honestly. But I wasn't going to press on the issue-- it was the first shifts of the season, maybe she wanted to train someone else instead of having me work. After this, there was about a month and a half gap between my next shift, which was May 9. Then I have another May 11; both go fine.
Manager posts the schedule for the next few weeks, up until June 9. I have one single shift. One. A four-hour concessions shift. I was insanely confused by this-- it's the start of the season with home games almost every single day, and multiple events with huge crowds. I texted the other girls I work with through our scheduling app and asked what their shifts looked like-- 3 to 5 shifts every week, about six hours each.
I was seriously wracking my brain for 3 days straight trying to think why on Earth I got the short end of the stick. I show up early and leave late every day, I help out as much as I can, customers don't complain, I'm experienced with the register and with counting tender, my co-workers and I get along fine, I've never had any issues with anyone.
The only thing I could seriously think about was my race. Which feels very cheap and victim-y, but it was the only thing I noticed that was an outlier. Out of every single employee at our stadium, I am the only person of color. Maybe somebody else is a minority, too, but they're incredibly white passing if they are. The only other brown people are the baseball players, which aren't on our staff team-- they're a separate entity entirely.
But that's all I can think of-- and my manager wouldn't have known about my race until she saw me for the first time at my first shift. And it's kind of difficult to have all-white staff considering we are in the suburbs of Chicago. Most people in our area are Black or Latino. It's seriously a considered effort to have an all-white staff in this area. I think I may have just slipped through the cracks because my name and voice are very misleading? But I can't tell if I'm overreacting or not-- I haven't said anything to my manager.
I don't want to quit because my coworkers are really nice, and I love the job. It's great being outside and being in a fun and fast environment like a stadium. But I'm trying to save for university and that's difficult when I don't work at all. Plus, I don't wanna give my labor to someone who despises me.
Am I overreacting in this situation and getting ahead of myself, or is this actually something worth looking into? Please help me. And yes, I know that it's very overdramatic to make things about my race-- this is genuinely the first time I've had to consider this with an employer.
TL;DR I'm the only minority at my job and I get barely any shifts while my white coworkers get more. I don't do anything wrong and I have lots of experience in similar roles. Should I look into this more, or get over myself?

Our 2 oldest are 19 and 18 and live at home. Our oldest is in college but is dropping out for at least a yr as she doesn't know what she wants to major in so she wants to take a break to figure it out and she is hoping to move states with her bf in the next yr or so. My 18 yr old was doing online HS but in the last mo th or so kinda fell behind and just came to us saying she isn't going to complete her HS diploma requirements in time to graduate. She does have 2 part time jobs and has been looking into GED programs. Now their Dad and I have brought up the subject of rent and while they didn't seem to mind at he cost seemed to be out of left field for them. We live in WA state and have a pretty high min wage. Once summer starts they will both be working full time. Rent will include everything with 1 meal a day (dinner). Any special foods/snacks will be covered by them along with personal items but we will cover normal household items like toilet paper, shampoo/conditioner, toothpaste etc. If rent is paid we will not expect them to do chores except the normal pick up after yourself, do your dishes and laundry etc. Now for the cost...we were thinking of charging 500 a month everything included. When my 19 yr old was in college we didn't charge her rent at all, and if she would have stayed enrolled we would have let her stay rent free but not now that she is dropping out. Our 18 yr old isn't paying until summer when school is technically over as she isn't going to college right away anyway and was planning a gap yr even before she decided not to get her HSD. They are both mad at us and think that 500 is too much. If we broke down everything not including food into 5ths it would be a little over 600 so I think 500 with dinners included is a great deal but they don't as it almost pays our mortgage. Am I expecting them to pay an unreasonable amount?

Hey Redditors! 🌟 Are you tired of the daily grind and looking for a way to earn a living without leaving the comfort of your home? You're in the right place! Let's dive into the world of customer service chat jobs work from home. This is more than just a job—it's a lifestyle change that offers flexibility, control, and the chance to connect with people worldwide. Ready to transform your career? Let’s go!
Why Customer Service Chat Jobs Work from Home Are a Game Changer
Imagine starting your day with a cup of coffee, wearing your favorite comfy clothes, and logging into your computer to start helping customers solve their problems. No more commuting, no more office politics—just you, your device, and the opportunity to make a difference. Customer service chat jobs from home offer unparalleled convenience and the ability to create a work-life balance that suits you.
My Journey into Customer Service Advisor Live Chat Jobs
I stumbled into the world of customer service advisor live chat jobs almost by accident. Burnt out from the traditional 9-to-5, I was searching for something that would give me more control over my time. That’s when I discovered these remote opportunities. Setting up my home office was an adventure—choosing the perfect chair, ensuring a strong internet connection, and creating a space that felt both professional and personal. The best part? The flexibility to schedule my work around my life, not the other way around.
The Perks of Customer Support Live Chat Jobs
One of the biggest perks of customer support live chat jobs is the ability to work from anywhere. Whether you're in your living room, at a café, or traveling, as long as you have a reliable internet connection, you’re good to go. This mobility is perfect for those who value freedom and want to escape the confines of a traditional office.
The best chat customer service jobs also come with a sense of accomplishment. Each interaction is a chance to help someone, to solve a problem, and to make a customer's day a little brighter. You’re not just providing a service; you’re building relationships and creating positive experiences.
Building a Community While Working Remotely
One of the unexpected joys of customer service chat jobs from home is the community. Even though you're not physically in an office, you’re part of a team. We connect through virtual meetings, share tips and strategies, and celebrate each other's successes. This camaraderie makes the job even more rewarding and helps you stay motivated and engaged.
Skills You’ll Gain from Online Customer Service Chat Jobs from Home
Working in online customer service chat jobs from home helps you develop a unique set of skills. You'll become a master of time management, learn to prioritize tasks efficiently, and develop excellent communication abilities. These skills are not only valuable for your current role but are also highly transferable to any future career paths you might choose.
Tips for Succeeding in Customer Service Chat Jobs from Home

1. Create a Dedicated Workspace: Having a specific area for work helps you stay focused and separates your work life from your personal life.
2. Stay Organized: Use tools like calendars, task lists, and time management apps to keep track of your duties and deadlines.
3. Keep Learning: The customer service field is always evolving. Stay up-to-date with the latest tools, technologies, and best practices.
4. Communicate Effectively: Clear communication is key in customer support. Be concise, empathetic, and always aim to resolve issues efficiently.
5. Take Breaks: Working from home can sometimes blur the lines between work and rest. Ensure you take regular breaks to recharge and avoid burnout.

Why You Should Consider Customer Service Chat Jobs from Home
If you're looking for a career that offers flexibility, the ability to work from anywhere, and the chance to make a real impact, customer service chat jobs from home are an excellent choice. You’ll gain valuable skills, connect with a global community, and have the freedom to design a work-life balance that suits you.
So, Reddit community, are you ready to take the plunge into the world of customer service chat jobs work from home? This could be the opportunity you’ve been waiting for. Set up your home office, get connected, and start making a difference today. The future of work is here, and it's flexible, fulfilling, and just a few clicks away. Let’s make it happen! 🚀
Feel free to share your experiences, tips, and questions in the comments. Let’s support each other on this journey to a more flexible and rewarding career!Transform Your Career with Customer Service Chat Jobs Work from Home! Don't miss out on the chance to redefine your work life. Click below to learn more and start your journey to success today. Discover More and Apply Now!

Hi all, I'm a freelance illustrator and I can draw unique pieces of lettering, artwork, poster design, logo and cover art for your brand, game, book, etc. Feel free to see my profile here: https://www.artstation.com/mushroomboyz Contact me via DM or my email namhung454art@gmail.com. Thank you!

I went through a journey during the past six months that helped me explore a part of myself that I did not know. I feel that I have changed radically since I started following it (I am 17, but I feel that I have become more mature than other adults).
At first I didn't know about Grimes, but I was an obsessive, worshipful Elon Musk fan, interested in his daily habits like working 12 hours and sleeping 7 hours a day (which he lied about), and I stuck my nose into his personal life (like an obsessive K-Pop fan ), I found that most of his previous women were attractive (blonde and very traditional attractiveness) except for Grimes, who I found ugly and witch-like in their first appearance on the Met Gala, so I decided to search for her more (and it was the best work I did in my life), I was I was worried about this woman. I felt that she was a Freemason and belonged to the Illuminati (because of her strange clothes and her album covers) or that she was a witch and cast black magic spells in her songs to enchant her audience and kill them, and I was very afraid.
I had a strange feeling for her and went to her YouTube channel and listened to Oblivion and it seemed like a bad and ugly song the first time (I mean, my taste is bad) and I said to myself that I would never listen to any of her songs again since Oblivion was the most viewed song and I didn't like it (my view was superficial and ridiculous), I went to reddit and found that her fans were praising her playing. I was amazed to know that she produces her own music and melodies unlike other pop stars like Selena or Taylor. I listened to Oblivion again and this time focused on the vocal tracks and Then I listened to Genesis and it sounded like a fortune teller or something like that. I then listened to all of her songs and went to translate them. I was amazed that they did not contain the words of a prostitute girl and cursing, and she rarely sings about love. I was interested in her from that moment on and it went. To watch all of her interviews she seemed so spontaneous and unconventional. I loved that she expressed her political opinions even on unrelated topics (like her talk about challenging societal norms of diet and weight and her controversial talk about being a vegetarian and eating hot dogs). Teens and Kids benefit from interviewing her (even about preferences) unlike other celebrities whose interviews are mostly a waste of time.
I stopped by to watch her other interview with Lex Friedman, found it helpful except for a few points (I wrote down every word she said in the interview in a notebook) and bought those books she recommended like the "Culture Series" and even watched the anime "Totoro" which she recommended for kids. I used to watch podcasts about famous singers and almost the same thing is repeated by most of them and there is no value learned, but for me every interview with Grimes is a big change for my personality.
I finished all of her interviews and went to follow all of her accounts, and I was surprised that she responded to comments (such as her response to a comment about makeup) because I was accustomed to the culture of celebrities who leave thousands of comments without responding. I also compared the comments, as the comments of celebrities are frequent (such as: I love you (You're beautiful, you're sexy, heart and rose emojis...) and the comments on the grimes account are full of mature and creative people and I loved her interactions with fans and the awkward things like her talking to the grimes AI (which they designed to be immortal grimes...), and her tweets Regarding preferences about anime and manga, and her crazy looks that show her asymmetrical artistic body, her embarrassing interviews, and her big nose, all the way to her foolish and controversial opinions, although I do not like many of the stupid things that she says, but I love her frank personality without apology, she says Things she knows lead to her being hated, unlike other stars who flatter and pretend to be nice and kind to get as many obsessed fans as possible.
I've changed a lot during the 6 months I spent looking at anything related to grimes. I've become more confident in myself. Well, I hate something called self-confidence. I'll replace it with: "I've become more embarrassed." I used to be shy about revealing that I'm an otaku, and now I am... I became more frank and more open to declaring the world I had created inside my imagination - Vikings, cards, and science fiction. I became less anxious and considered my very thin, asymmetrical yellow body to be an unconventional standard of beauty. I became open to different cultures, ancient civilizations, and ancient poetry. And history, and I invented unique hair colors instead of blonde, and made my body and face a guinea pig for crazy tricks with liquid eyeliner. They also became more accepting of my damned embarrassing personality instead of searching for silly videos about increasing self-confidence and a strong personality that attracts men. I was obsessed with Elon Musk, but after I learned about his crazy relationship with Grimes, I learned that he is just a fat, narcissistic, sadistic child, and billionaires should not be taken as an example.
I'm not a huge fan of grimes but she is an interesting person and anyone who is trapped in the shell of being obsessed with Taylor Swift (but not limited to) should know about grimes