The Purified Metanoia Theory
True Revelation of the Atonement
The atonement has been disputed or conceived in different manners for centuries, and today we have christian groups arguing the atonement of Jesus. Some suggest that is mysterious while others say it is fathomable, but now I present my outlook of the matter. Did Jesus reconcile both parties, or only one of them? Did Jesus really need to die on a Cross to save men from their sins? In a perfect sense, no but in a fallen sense, yes. Was it to appease God’s wrath on sinners? Not at all. This theory doesn’t appeal to man’s sense of justice (which is really vengeance in disguise). Penal Substitution doesn’t really reveal the love of God in a “just sense”. It misunderstands God’s concept of justice with man’s concept. The Greek word metanoia (μετάνοια) which is understood as “repentance”, simply means a change of heart or thought. Because of the Latin translation, it has lost its true and original meaning. The summary of this view is that Jesus came to purify our minds from sin, so that we could live for righteousness and know the true nature of God.
The Purpose of the Blood and Sin Offering
The mistaken idea of the Blood of Jesus is that we seem to identify it as the means of forgiveness, because PSA theory affirms that Jesus paid the penalty of sins, which is not exactly what happened. The blood of Jesus is revealed to be the means of purging us from sins, or restoring our sinful reflection to Christ’s reflection. The purpose of a blood sacrifice was to cleanse us from defilement, and not to impute righteousness for forgiveness’ sake. Hebrews says, “For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that their bodies are clean, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the aionion Spirit offered Himself unblemished to purify our consciences from works of death, so that we may serve the living God!” (9:13, 14). The author of Hebrews makes a comparison of the O.T. sacrifices with Jesus’ sacrifice, which implies that only Jesus has the power to truly purify us. If God required bloodshed for the means of forgiveness, why are there stories of God forgiving without it, or commanding a sin offering like flour (Exodus 32:9–14; Leviticus 5:11; Jonah 3:1–10)? A sin offering was not for personal forgiveness or for imputing righteousness, but for ritual purification from ritual defilement.
The atonement, and the default relationship of God with man is best described as a surgeon removing an infection from the patient, instead of a judge sentencing a criminal. It isn’t morally just for a judge to impute guilt on a law-abiding citizen rather than a criminal. Even the book of Ezekiel proves this case against Penal Substitution (Ezekiel 18:19, 20). And it isn’t practical for God to literally cover our sins, because the “infection” or “virus” still abides and perpetuates the problem of evil. Instead God purges the infection/virus and adds “antibodies” of His love to overcome the issue. In fact, John the apostle says, “You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin” (1 John 3:5). Jesus came to purge or take away sins, instead of forgiving sins as the central message of the atonement. A legal pardon of sin isn’t as practical (or necessary) as an act that leads to a purgative process of the mind from sin.
Love Atones for Sins
What does it mean when love atones for sins? It is quite simple. Love becomes a priority over sin in our minds and life. This is what Colossians meant by saying, “For you have died, and your life has been hidden with Christ in God” (3:3). Because Christ joined us to God, our life is mainly comprised of and inspired by love than sin. The apostle Paul says that we overcome evil with good, which is in degree of discipline (Romans 12:21). And Jesus overcame evil with His kindness on the Cross, and defeated the likeness of man with His reflection. Love atones or covers sins by overcoming its influence and extinguishing its reason for manifesting. You could say forgiveness is required in order to do good to the person. But if forgiveness is the basis for it, why then do we see God not forgiving His enemies? If it is impossible to do good to those who have wronged us without the virtue of forgiveness, then why do we see God’s justice to be without forgiveness and still deem it as morally good? God doesn’t negate His justice with forgiveness, but rather His desire to justly correct others is an expression of His forgiveness or mercy.
Mercy and justice serve as compatible virtues, not as opposite virtues because love has no opposite expression other than evil. All the mannerisms of love coexist in harmony and not as opposed. Justice without mercy is vengeful and abusive; meanwhile, mercy without justice is wrongly passive or submission empowering abuse. There needs to be a harmonious joining of these two active virtues to produce a truly moral action.
The Message of the Cross
The message of the Cross is not about God suddenly forgiving us because blood was shed. It isn’t about God changing His mind on mankind made in the image of God. It’s about Jesus exposing the cruelty of sin, the greatness of God’s love, and changing our perception of God. In a way, God demanding a sacrifice from mankind to be appeased is no different from the gods of their time. And PSA theory ruins the uniqueness and exclusivity of God’s nature, who chooses to be self-sacrificial, immanent, and self-revealing.
So the Lamb of God came to purify our minds (also conscience) from sin by changing our mind on God and sins; it also intends to inspire the hearer of the message with the love of God (more akin to Moral Influence Theory). God reveals that He is forgiving by nature, able to empathize with our suffering, and potent enough to overcome any detrimental barrier (i.e. sin and death). Peter explains:
“ ‘He himself bore our sins’ in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; ‘by his wounds you have been healed’ ” (1 Peter 2:24).
Christ bore our sins by enduring the abuse of our represented sins, in order to expose the cruelty of sin and the graciousness of God’s unconditional love. This is meant to dissuade us from the ugly perversions of sin and motivate us to love all in general. As Paul even says, “For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again” (2 Corinthians 5:14, 15). The message of the Cross is intended to inspire us to live in virtue and to dissuade us from gratifying the ego. Christ reconciled us to God instead of reconciling both parties or just God. Before reconciliation occurs, repentance from sins must transpire. Paul makes this atonement view very clear:
“All this is from God, who 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 people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation” (verse 18 and 19).
And the usual argument for the doctrine of PS imputation is 2 Corinthians 5:21. As it states, “God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”. There are two ways of reinterpreting or translating this verse. I’ll offer two ways of doing this. First, we can’t assume everything Paul is asserting to be literal in understanding. For instance, you take “to become sin” to be literal, but not “He who knew no sin” lest you assume that Jesus didn’t know the concept of sin. It could be understood as God making Jesus or Himself (if Jesus is implied again) to be like a sin offering for our sins, because a sin offering is meant to purify us from sin. This view fits with the PMA theory, because Jesus came to take away sins (moral purification or therapy of the heart). A second way of interpreting this verse could work as follows:
“He made Himself know no sin for our sins, so that we could become the righteousness of God” (Reconstructed Verse).
In other words, God chose to ignore and forgive our sins, so that He could enable us to become righteous. Because if God is fixated on our sins, then He cannot be forgiving by nature, which is required to transform us into holiness and purge sin from us. A fixation of sin doesn’t enable forgiveness, nor is it forgiving by nature. Instead God holds this in mind, “And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins” (Hebrews 8:12). Some versions say that He will purge their sins and remember them no more. God’s unconditional forgiveness is the reason for our purification from sin and union towards love.
The True Nature of God’s Wrath
God’s wrath is corrective or redemptive but not punitive or vengeful. Jesus explains the character of God as being impartial to the just and the unjust:
“Then you will become children of your Father in heaven. For he makes his sun shine on good and bad people alike, and he sends rain to the righteous and the unrighteous alike” (Matthew 5:45).
Let’s assume the sun mainly implies kindness and the rain implies discipline. God demonstrates these two aspects of His goodness to His elect and the lost. God sends kindness and discipline for personal edification because Love itself is edifying. But if it becomes destructive, can we still deem it as biblical love? No. And what purpose is there for the wrath of God, because the devil and sin already torment or destroy the one who sins. The punitive wrath of God is needless and impractical at this point. Instead of God’s wrath destroying the sinner, it is the devil who commits this, but God does this for a redemptive purpose (1 Corinthians 5:5). God allows suffering on the person, so they can realize that sin is detrimental and return to the source of all good. God’s wrath is aimed at the sin to be purged from the person, but not to make the sinner less edified. When God’s wrath is mentioned or implied, it is not to eradicate humanity out of resentment, but to prune them into maturity. Just because the wrath of God is mentioned doesn’t mean it implies Penal Substitution. If God’s wrath is seeking to only torment us, then it doesn’t solve the problem of evil in the human heart. It only helps the agenda of the devil for them to be lost forever. But if God’s wrath seeks to purify us from sin to be like Christ or matured, then the agenda of the devil is thwarted. God is really angry at the state of our lost identity to sin, not the individual. God’s redemptive justice or corrective wrath doesn’t prove PSA theory, because this theory doesn’t teach God’s wrath or justice to be redemptive.
God Saves Our Minds From Darkness (Hostile Minds/Demons)
The aim of the Cross was not only to change our perceptions and cleanse us from our sins, but also to liberate the mind from satanic delusions or accusations. The devil has great opportunity and power over the mind if it indulges in sin. The devil has the capacity to oppress them and partially impose his will against them. As it is stated by Paul, “In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4). The gospel has an advantage on some at first, but some require a deeper purgative work against their stubbornness through the mighty power of the Spirit. Yet some will continue in their lost identity and shall be saved as one who walks by fire (1 Corinthians 3:15). It is as St. Gregory of Nyssa said:
“Wherefore, that at the same time liberty of free-will should be left to nature and yet the evil be purged away, the wisdom of God discovered this plan; to suffer man to do what he would, that having tasted the evil which he desired, and learning by experience for what wretchedness he had bartered away the blessings he had, he might of his own will hasten back with desire to the first blessedness …either being purged in this life through prayer and discipline, or after his departure hence through the furnace of cleansing fire” (Orat. pro Mortuis).
The Lord Christ saved us in a psychological sense on the Cross, so that the devil could not enslave us to his ambitions. Deceit, fear, and sin are powerful mediums for the devil to utilize against corrupt or unstable minds. The gospel and its power are the mediums a Christian must utilize, in hopes of destroying the consistent works of the devil implanted their minds. It is written by the apostle, “He must gently reprove those who oppose him, in the hope that God may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. Then they will come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, who has taken them captive to his will” (2 Timothy 2:25, 26).
Indeed, Christ only saves us from the kingdom of darkness through our minds, and so the apostle teaches, “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins (Colossians 1:13, 14). Of course, when it reads “forgiveness of sins” it also alternatively translates as “release/deliverance of sins” which is more akin to purgation or purification from sins (proof text is Luke 4:18). As for the counter notion of redemption in the text, Paul was specifying on the kind of redemption he intends to write to the Colossians, instead of using an inclusive statement (e.g. redemption and forgiveness of sins). The purgation of sins in our hearts empowers our redemption to Christ, and reduces and negates the control of the satanic kingdom.
The countering notion brings this up, “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath [of God]” (Romans 5:9). The brackets were implemented because these two words are nowhere in the original manuscript of the Koine Greek. So this verse is open to interpretation of what Paul meant. This statement could imply the wrath of the devil, which is coherent with the Colossians verse. The Koine Greek word for “wrath” also implies passion, so it could also imply that Christ saved us from our sinful passions of the mind. This is coherent with this verse, “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. And those who are in the flesh [living a life that caters to sinful appetites and impulses] cannot please God” (Romans 8:7, 8). But the countering notion of “justified by His blood” tries to imply imputation of righteousness (as PSA proponents suggest). However, that same term in the Koine Greek also has a rare or seldom usage, which conveys the idea of being liberated. This same and rare usage is also expressed in Romans 6:7:
“For we know that our old self was crucified with Him, so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin — because anyone who has died has been set free (δεδικαίωται) from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God” (6:6–10).
This verse (Romans 6:7) in actual and biblical context affirms a moral transformation where love becomes a priority over sin, and sin dies by losing its primary dominance in the believer’s heart. And so it makes no sense to suggest an imputation, because this passage mentions being liberated from sin, not justified by it. We cannot be justified from sin, because it makes no logical sense if it’s translated this way. The same idea conveyed in 6:7 can be viewed in Romans 5:9, that the blood of Christ has liberated us from our sins. Sin cannot make one righteous, nor justify them before God. My theory of the atonement stands in view that Christ rescued us from the wrath of the devil and passions of the fleshly heart.
*And the blood of Christ can imply His human blood, but it could also imply His moral essence, which has the capability to liberate us from sins and empower us to love in truth and practice. The human blood of Jesus was for our perception but the “divine blood” of Christ was for our transformation. Just an interesting thought I wanted to leave you with. :)
(I might re-edit this post to strengthen it; I published this for the public to know about a better theory. God bless you.)
