I'm not certain I understand your question, as you have agreed with me.
Christ's life was one lived in perfect harmony with God's Law. You, myself, and everyone else on this planet is completely incapable of living that life. If we were, Christ's life and death would have been pointless. He lived the perfect life that is impossible for us to live, and died the death that we deserve (experiencing separation from the Father), taking the sins of the world upon himself. So when Paul says he has been crucified with Christ, he is referring to his sinful nature, as he was not physically next to Christ on another cross as your verbage has suggested. Our sins died at the cross with the Savior. So again, if Christ didn't live a perfect life, his death was pointless. If we were capable of living by the Law, his death was pointless. He lived the perfect life in our stead.
To begin with:
Atonement (propitiation) sacrifice can be for everyone with the ransom payment being offered but the kidnapper may refuse to accept the sacrifice, so it was made in vain for that kidnapper and the child is not freed?
Would God need anything to forgive a person’s sins or is it the sinner needing something to accept that forgiveness as pure charity?
I find the ransom analogy to be an excellent fit and I am not talking about the “Ransom Theory of Atonement”
Ransom analogy ( but is it an analogy because scripture describes it as a literal ransom payment) having:
1. Someone other than the captive paying the ransom.
2. The payment is a huge sacrificial payment for the payer who would personally prefer not to pay.
3. Since those that come to God must come as children, it is the children of God that go to the Father.
4. The payer cannot safely get his children any other way than making the payment.
5. The kidnapper is totally undeserving.
6. The kidnap can accept or reject the payment.
Go to Luke 15: 11-32 the prodigal son story to illustrate:
Who returned to the father, was it the son that rebelliously wished his father’s death so he could get his inheritance or was it the child of the father? (not the son that left, but the child of the father that was always there within)
We can only come to our Father as children, so who is keeping the nonbeliever in the unbelieving state (the kidnapper)? (The sinner himself)
There is the one ransom, but could there be many kidnappers and many children?
Who are the kidnappers?
Looking at verses in particular:
(NIV) Ro. 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
“God presented” this might be better expressed as “God is offering” since it will later be received, not received or rejected on the contingency of some kind of “faith”. Instead of received it might better be translated as accepted (with the option of being rejected or not accepted).
“Sacrifice of atonement” is described by Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer as the “ransom payment” or just “ransom”. So God is offering a ransom payment to be accepted by those with faith or rejected by those refusing or just not accepted by those lacking faith.
A huge part of that ransom payment that especially applies to those that are already Christians is the life giving cleansing blood of Christ. Christ and God would have personally preferred that blood remained in Christ’s veins, but I needed it given up by Christ to flow over both my outside and my heart to know, experience, “trust” and feel I am cleansed and made alive. So Christ willingly gave up His blood for me and because of me. This is an overwhelming tragedy I insisted on to believe: I was made holy, righteous and stand justified. Without knowing and feeling this blood flowing over my heart, I might question my cleansing?
“Demonstrate his righteousness” God did not become righteous, but just showed the righteousness He has always had. (God’s justice/ holiness/being right) comes with the atoning sacrifice that includes the life giving cleansing blood showing God’s righteousness/justice in a very particular way; by resolving the huge problem that existed under the Old Covenant. That huge problem in the Old Covenant was with the handling of intentional sins that where committed, repented of, and which the individual sought forgiveness from God for doing (and God forgave without justly disciplining the sinner [thus not showing His righteousness through His disciplining]). These sins could be forgiven by God, but there was no way to fairly/justly discipline (punish) the sinner and still have the sinner live in the Promised Land. God did have fair/just punishments (discipline) for these sins, but the Jews could not follow through with them, since all Jews deserved to be treated similarly (there would be no one left in the Promised Land).
“in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished” Instead of “unpunished” I would translate that Greek word to be “undisciplined”.
“because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”, shows the contrast between before and after the cross. This is not saying: before the cross, sins are now being punished by Christ going to the cross, but that they were left unpunished. If they are being handled the “same way” as sins after the cross there would be no contrast? (And there are lots of other problems with this reasoning.) There is no “punishment” (disciplining for intentional sins) before the cross and there is “punishment” (disciplining of God’s children) with the cross.
Any good parent realizes the need for not just forgiving their rebellious disobedient child, but to also see to the child’s fair/just/loving discipline if at all possible, but under the Old Covenant there was no “fair/just/loving discipline” so God could not show His justice/righteousness except to point out in the Law what really should happen, but that is not “good” disciplining, the child can almost feel they got away with something.
By my coming to the realization of my forcing Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, because of my personal sins I experience a death blow to my heart (Acts 2: 37) the worst possible experience I can have and still live (That is also the most sever disciplining I can experience and still live). Thus I know God is my loving concerned Parent (since He at great cost has seen to my disciplining). I know how significant my sins really are; I can put those sins behind me after being disciplined. Since God and Jesus shared in my disciplining “I am crucified with Christ” (a teaching moment) our relationship is even greater than before my transgressing.
What is the benefit/value for us that we would want to accept the ransom payment of Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder?
What value benefit did it have for those 3000 on the day of Pentecost?
Would those 3000 have become baptized believers on the day of Pentecost if Peter had not been able to say: Acts 2:36 “…this Jesus whom you crucified”?
So for those 3000, their crucifying Christ (ransom payment/atoning sacrifice) resulted in them becoming baptized believers on the day of Pentecost! Did it have value for them?
I have written a parable to help explain how atonement works:
There is battle going on and you as an old man leave your post. The crime is punishable by 40 lashes or equivalent, but that will kill you. Your young innocent grandson offers to take your place and explains to the judge (general) that; 40 lashes on him will cause you tremendous pain, and anguish equivalent to him being lashed. The judge (general) refuses because that would not be just to punish an innocent for the guilty (everyone knows that). The innocent grandson then says: “I will go over to the enemy’s camp for my father’s sake and they will beat me and imprison me until the end of the war”. The Judge (general) cannot stop the young man from doing such a thing and knows this will really hurt the grandfather when you find out, so the judge will not have to punish the grandfather (justice has been served). When you do find out, you plead for the son’s return, but it is to later and besides; there is really no other way for you to be punished and live.
One of the questions that comes up with my theory of atonement is:
“How does a little heart ping equal a person spending eternity in hell?”
Answer:
1. It is not a little heart ping, but the worst thing a person can experience here on earth and continue to live Acts 2:37.
2. Where does the Bible really teach those in hell have an eternal existence?
3. Does God’s discipline of His repentant child have to be “equal” to the person going to hell to be fair? Does the repentant rebellious disobedient child of a wonderful earthly parent need make “pay” in full for the discipline to be fair/just discipline (can he really repay the cost for his intentionally rebellion?)
4. Those in hell are guilty of the offence of not humbling themselves enough to trust God and repent, so they have that added offence.
This will get us started if you really want to know.
