I have a case for you to consider.
I am told that, after the 1994 Rwandan genocide, there was this woman who forgave the man who killed her family. In forgiving this man, the woman went as far as asking the man to live with her as her son.
I want to note here that:
- The woman did not require any retribution whatsoever, except that the man only made a confession and asked for forgiveness.
- In forgiving the man, the woman took the relationship to higher and better level, i.e. as a son which is more than a neighbour.
- Neither did the woman seek retribution from God on this man, seeing the man was now her son.
Was this woman manifesting the Spirit of God by not requiring any retribution for the wrongs she had suffered at the hands of this man?
How you answer this question can change your entire view about the character of the God of the Bible. You see, today, most Christians believe that if Christ had not taken the retribution that was ours, God would never have forgiven us. Not without some blood to satisfy His law. If so, then this woman is far more holy in character than the God of most people. Because, that God could not do this, he wanted some one to pay for Adam’s sins, and his Son paid.
If you find this a bit challenging, consider this.
Did Christ die for us in that God required some blood to atone for our sins, or did Christ die for us in the sense that, like Adam, we could not believe that God could just forgive without retribution. So God gave his son, to show us God’s character of totally free unconditional forgiveness of the sinner upon confession and repentance, which thing Christ showed abundantly in person, that he simply announced forgiveness to people just like that, but we killed him, felt that God is now happy, and so we can believe that God can now forgive us.
If you believe the latter makes sense, then your entire theology is about to change, because this difference in understanding flows over to just about any other doctrine.
Feel free to share your comments.