Specifically regarding the proposition of ransom of a perfect man for the sins of all mankind. We are unable to connect to this proposition with the same depth of emotion today because we do not accept the legal principle that it is dependent upon. In ancient times, when someone committed a crime, they aggrieved the crime’s victim and the victim’s family, i.e. not the state. The aggrieved party can be made whole by the criminal and the judge closes the case. How can they be made whole? with a payment of money in some cases, or a substitute person to serve out the sentence of penalty (including execution).

We do not accept the payment of ransoms, nor substitutes for the criminal’s penalty, today in our courts of law. The payment for tort claims such as wrongful death, resembles some part of this, however, we’re getting off the subject now.

The point is, if you were the judge, and you wouldn’t accept the ransom of another person for the defendant in a criminal case, then how can you now use this as the basis for your moral teaching? You cannot. And only people who are pretending to do that get any credibility in xtian churches. As you teach in this post, the real sin is to believe that we aren’t worthy of God’s love ( or substitute a more meaningful terminology if you can ). Shame/Guilt/Condemnation teachings had a very beneficial effect on the simple people who were unable to control their behavior and build a civilization. Teach us then, not to gloat over the victory, but rather to bathe in it’s perfumed delightful presence.