Davo, in the OT texts you have offered, the Hebrew word for grace (in Latin characters) is “chen.” Lexicons give the meaning as “favor” or “acceptance.” Of course God accepted people in the days of the ancient people and granted his favor to them, too. I also looked up the word in the Septuagint for three of the verses you quoted. The word is “χαριν” (Strong’s 5484) and not “χαρις” (Strongs 5485) as in the Titus passage I quoted. “χαριν,” like “chen” also means “favor” or “acceptance.” So there is some sense in which “χαρις” is a form of “grace” that appeared for salvation, training Christ’s followers to renounce wrongdoing and to live righteous and devout lives and to be zealous for good deeds as Paul in his letter to Titus (ch2) affirms. I refer to this as “enabling grace.”
Now I admit that in the NT, the scope of the word “χαρις” reaches beyond enablement. It is used also in the same way as the word “χαριν.” An example of this is found in Lu 2:40
And the Child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace (“χαρις”) of God was upon Him.
So in this sense “grace” was given to those in ancient Israel. God accepted them and granted them His favor. But enabling grace “appeared” through Jesus Christ, and was unknown under the old order. Previously, people had to struggle in their own strength and through their own desire to be righteous. After the grace of God appeared through Christ, His people received special enablement to assist them.
Thanks for the question, qaz. It’s an important one.
I don’t say that a free-willed person does not have the ABILITY (theoretically) to live a consistently righteous life. He does, if he nearly always chooses the right and seldom the wrong. But that is much less likely to happen than it is if he appropriates the enabling grace that is made available through Christ’s death. He appropriates it by faith. Then, according to Paul (Titus 2) he is TRAINED by this grace to avoid wrongdoing and to live righteously.
There are many things a child will learn quickly to do successfully if he is trained to do them, even though he might succeed in doing some of these things through sheer self-effort.
Paidion, I disagree. As Hebrews chapter 11 says,
verse 4 “By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts.”
verse 5 “By faith Enoch was translated so that he did not see death.”
verse 7 “By faith Noah , being divinely warned of things not yet seen ,moved with Godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the the world and became he heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.”
verse 8 “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would afterward receive as an inheritance.”
verse 11 “By faith Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed…”
verse 23 “By faith Moses, when he was born , was hidden three months by his parents because they saw that he was a beautiful child, and they were not afraid of the king’s command.”
verse 24 “By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin…”
verse 29 “By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land, whereas the Egyptians attempting to do so were drowned.”
verse 31 “By faith the harlot Rahab did not perish with those who did not believe, when she had received the spies with peace.”
verses 32-34 “And what more shall I say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong…”
2 Likes
We know the cup of wrath that Jesus drank from wasn’t penal. I think it was James and John Jesus asked if they could drink from His cup. If it was penal then he would be telling them that they would have to pay for their sins after He payed for them on the cross which is a double payment and that’s unjust. Therefore, the disciplinary punishment is what Christ was telling them they would drink. The wrath of the cup was suffering from disciplinary punishment.
“My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, or lose heart when He rebukes you. For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and He punishes everyone He receives as a son.” Endure suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?
1 Like
Okay, with what do you disagree? Do you disagree that grace appeared in “the present age” (the age of grace) as Paul affirmed in Titus 2? Do you disagree that this grace trains us “to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age”? Do you disagree that in the present age our Savior Jesus Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works”?
And in what way do the verses you shared about the faith of the ancient Israelites support your disagreement?
The objection that it’s unjust to inflict punishment on the innocent in certain circumstances is true if one holds to a retributive theory of justice. But I have shown above that the cup of God’s wrath wasn’t penal. It was corrective, medicinal, and disciplinary. God did not inflict Christ with penal punishment. So, the objection doesn’t hold. Rather, Christ voluntarily took upon Himself death which would have been the penal punishment for us had it been inflicted upon us. Christ willingly paid the penalty for our sins. Our justice system permits people to pay penalties like fines on behalf of other persons who are in agreement. Since Christ didn’t suffer God’s penal wrath God didn’t unjustly punish the innocent. This would fit with the OT sacrifices. Death is the penalty for sin and the animal would die in the place of the worshipper but it wasn’t being punished by God with penal wrath. Rather, the animal suffered the fate that would have been the worshippers penal punishment had it happened to him.
Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the1 sinner go unpunished.
In civil law there is what is called vicarious liability. In these cases the principle of respondant superior is invoked in order to impute the liability of a subordinate to his superior. A master is held liable for acts of his servant. An example of this is when an employer is held liable for acts done by his employee in his role as employee, even though the employer did not do these acts himself. It includes things like battery, fraud, manslaughter, etc. The liability incurred by his employee for certain acts is imputed to him in virtue of his relationship with the employee. Consider Christ. By virtue of His relationship with humanity our sins can be imputed to Him. In His incarnation and baptism He comes into union and solidarity with humanity. He becomes the Son of Man and therefore, our representative and proxy so that He dies for our sins as our representative and proxy. We die with Christ as He identifies Himself with us. The imputation of wrongdoing or guilt to a blameless party is a coherent and widely accepted feature of our justice system. Vicarious liability. Now you can denounce it as unjust but in the sacrifice of Christ, the reconciliation of the world would justify His suffering and death. It’s outweighed by greater goods. But even so, the only case where vicarious liability would be unjust is if it’s nonvoluntarily. If Christ, out of personal concern for humanity wishes to be merciful by voluntarily being held vicariously reliable for humanity’s wrongdoing there’s nothing unjust about it.
But if one doesn’t want to go this route he can also adopt a legal fiction. These are also used by our justice system to administer justice. God chooses to treat Christ “as if” he had done the crimes. A legal fiction is something that the court knows to be false but treats as if it were true for the sake of a particular action. In the case of Christ it is the reconciliation of the world. The use of legal fictions is a well and long established feature of systems of law. It’s not saying our redemption is unreal or that penal substitution is a fiction or that the expiation of sin is unreal. What is fictitious is that Christ did the wrongful acts. In our justice systems a legal fiction is a device used to bring about real and objective differences in the world. God and Christ adopt for the purposes of the reconciliation of the whole world the legal fiction that Christ had done the sin in question. This doesn’t mean that our justification is unreal.
As far as letting the sinner go free this is what is referred to as Divine forgiveness. Divine forgiveness is different than what we ordinarily think of when we think of forgiveness. Divine forgiveness in the NT is what God does when He pardons. I will look more closely at legal pardon and it’s effects but here’s William Lane Craig with a beginning:
When thinking of Divine forgiveness the Bible describes it as a legal pardon. It includes forgiveness as we understand it on a personal level but is more along the lines of a legal pardon. William Lane Craig explains here:
As we have seen, even if God did punish Christ for our sins with penal wrath it isn’t unjust. The imputation of wrongdoing or guilt to a blameless party is a coherent and widely accepted feature of our justice system. It’s called Vicarious liability. By virtue of His relationship with humanity our sins can be imputed to Christ. In His incarnation and baptism He comes into union and solidarity with humanity. He becomes the Son of Man and therefore, our representative and proxy before God so that He dies for our sins as our representative and proxy. We die with Christ as He identifies Himself with us. His forgiveness is more along the lines of a legal pardon. God cannot give pardons to rectify some injustice, since His judicial condemnation of sinners is just. If He pardons it must be out of mercy. But then it would seem He’s acting unjustly. So, how can God legitimately exercise mercy if doing so is inconsistent with His justice? God’s pardoning of our sin demands the satisfaction of His justice. Christ as our substitute, representative, and proxy satisfies God’s justice through His suffering, death and resurrection. With Divine justice satisfied God can then pardon us from our sins. God’s pardon is predicated on Christ satisfying divine justice. Such a divine pardon even meets the requirements of the pure retributivist., For given Christ’s satisfaction of divine justice on our behalf, nothing more is due from us. God’s pardon is therefore required by justice.
All I can say, Hollytree, is that this concept is a grave error. I repeat the words of George MacDonald:
They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the1 sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin.
Well, I’ve answered MacDonald and you fail to interact with what was said. It shows that you are outside the body of Christ.
As I understand it… ‘penal substitution’ makes a lot of sense as it is applied to and left with biblical Israel of the old covenant — Jesus came to save / redeem His people, i.e., Israel. Below are two really good articles by Andrew Perriman detailing how this works…
Davo,
Those who believe in Penal Substitution also believe in redemption. Salvation - Sanctification - glorification. Those who hold to Penal Substitution believe it is just one aspect of the atonement. The atonement is a multifaceted diamond with Penal Substitution at the center.
Take some time and read the articles and you might see what I’m (well actually the author) is saying — it is an eye opener.
Okay Davo. Give me some time and I’ll come back to it.
Davo,
I like the idea but I’m having a hard time understanding how I would be redeemed. If the atonement was just for Israel what about my faith.
HT…
Perriman is technically a partial prêterist so he doesn’t hold to many of my fuller conclusions BUT he is way further along than typically partial prêterists AND his focus on Israel first or primarily is right up my alley. This is his last paragraph that might gel for you with regards to your concerns.
We still come to God as sinners, trapped in a corrupted order of things from which we are powerless to escape. We may still need to say, quite simply, that Jesus died for our sins so that we may be part of a people reconciled to the God who brought it into existence to be “new creation”. Jesus’ death has opened up to me personally the possibility of being a player in God’s new world. But the continuing dependence of the people of God on the death of Jesus needs to be construed and explained not in abstract theoretical terms but narratively, historically—and of course, biblically.
My approach is to see Israel’s redemption as being the catalyst for the world’s reconciliation. That doesn’t stop anyone from any age responding to the love of God in service of others just like Jesus, i.e., that takes faith / faithfulness.
You may want to reconsider this statement. It is a serious pronouncement.
I will also offer for your consideration Chapter 2 of a book I began to write, entitled: “The Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.”
Chapter Two
The Means of Mercy
The Substitutionary Theory of Atonement
Is “the atonement” the supreme sacrifice offered to appease an angry God, a means of covering our sin so that God who is holy and cannot tolerate sin does not see our sins but Christ’s righteousness? Was Christ a substitute for us who took upon Himself the punishment which we deserve, so that we won’t have to go to hell? Is the atonement the means by which we can get to heaven in spite of our sinful human natures, in spite of our tendency to go on sinning throughout this brief span of life lived in a fallen world? Is this the plan and purpose of God — to justify taking a few to heaven by the “atoning work” of His Son and sending perhaps over 99% of people to eternal retribution? Are these ideas consistent with the divine attributes of the Creator of the Universe? How can His love and His justice be reconciled to this concept of the atonement when He is the epitome of fairness? God does not show partiality (Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11, Galatians 2:6)
The notion of the death of Christ being a means of appeasing a just God (“just” in the legal sense of inflicting penalties) has led to the concept of Christ offered to God as our substitute, so that we would not have to take the punishment we deserve, eternal hell, but Jesus, an infinite deity was able to take that infinite punishment on Himself in a finite period of time. There is a question we might ask the proponents of this theory. Does the atonement cover us all automatically, or is there something we must do to appropriate it? Most who espouse the substitutionary theory of atonement hold that there is indeed something we must do, although there is no “work” which we can do that will help us at all. Subscribers to this theory define “works” to be “good deeds which we have done in hopes that they will in some way make up for our wrongdoing, and balance the scale of justice in our favour”. Eph 2:8 is usually quoted at this point:
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. KJV
The verse immediately following is seldom quoted. That verse reads,
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. KJV
There is some variation in opinion as to what we actually must do to appropriate the “covering” so that we can get to heaven in spite of our sin, but a common thread seems to run through the teaching as to what we must do. Usually it is taught that we must first recognize a number of facts:
What follows are the supposed facts:
-
We are indeed sinners.
-
Christ has died in our place.
-
We need to be saved (This is understood as the necessity of being saved from hell).
-
We are helpless to save ourselves.
-
We can be saved only by grace (This is understood to be the unmerited favour of God).
Now having recognized these facts, what we must do is : -
Call upon Jesus to save us by His grace or in virtue of His shed blood.
and/or -
Believe (or trust) in the finished work of Christ to save us.
If we have done one or both of these two things, we are considered to be “justified” ( a word understood to mean “just as if I’d never sinned”, and saved from hell, for “God said it; I believe it; that settles it.”
In teaching this way to be saved, usually repentance is not mentioned at all, but if it is, it is thought to mean “feeling sorry for our sin” and then being ready to “accept Christ” as our “personal Saviour”. “Accepting Christ” seems to mean recognizing Christ’s “atoning work” and calling upon Him for salvation from hell.
Imagine two men, Jack, and Chris, both of whom have lived selfish, useless lives. Each has lived as a drunkard, as a thief, and as an adulterer. Each has continued in that way of life until death. Both appear before God to be assigned to their destinies. God says, “Jack, I see by the records that on October 12, 1978, you accepted my son Jesus as your personal Saviour. Okay, you’re covered. I’m not mad at you anymore. You can go to heaven forever. Chris, I cannot find any record of your having accepted Jesus as your Saviour. I am utterly enraged at you. To hell with you forever!”
Most people would see in this scenario the action of an unfair and unloving God. But one who subscribes to the substitutionary theory of atonement would have no difficulty whatever! He would say that God’s words to Jack demonstrates His love and mercy, and His words to Chris demonstrates His “justice”. How astonishing — that God is considered to exhibit two contradictory characteristics, love towards the less than 1% of mankind who “accept Christ as their personal Saviour” to whom He extends His mercy, but hate toward over 99% of humanity on whom he wreaks his vengeance through His judgment of everlasting torment! Useless torment --— that has no purpose other than causing pain and suffering forever!
In this booklet, it is my purpose to show what is found in the Bible concerning Christ’s sacrifice and its purpose.
At this point I want to emphasize that the substitutionary theory of atonement is just that — a theory of atonement. Any reputable theology text book will present several other theories on the subject. But the substitutionary theory has so permeated every aspect of Christian teaching today that it is difficult for many of us to conceive of the sacrifice of Christ in any other way. Was Christ’s sacrifice a way of appeasing a God who was angry about sin? Does Christ’s death meet some “legal demand” which requires the death of a sinless person? Is God “satisfied” with the excruciating death of His sinless Son? How does the death of an innocent victim “satisfy” God’s justice? Is God bound by the spiritual legalities which He Himself has established?
In considering the various elements of the substitutionary theory let’s first look at the “sacrifice” aspect. Does the living God require sacrifices to appease His wrath? Someone will say, “Oh no. Not any more. Christ was the supreme sacrifice to God. But under the old covenant He required them.” Do we know that to be the case? Did He require them to satisfy His own needs? What good do they do Him? I suggest that after the Israelites insisted on sacrificing to their God, just as other nations did to theirs, by way of concession, He allowed it, and then gave instructions as to how it was to be done, specifying that their sacrifices were to be offered to Him alone, and to no other gods. But in a primary sense, God didn’t require sacrifices at all.
Is it not the heathen religions of the world that try to appease their gods with sacrifice, try to keep them from getting angry, try to avoid their wrath? Does the Creator of the Universe require this kind of appeasement? How did He feel about the Israelites trying to appease Him in this way? Through Isaiah, Yahweh spoke, calling the people “rulers of Sodom” and “people of Gomorrah”
Isaiah 1:10-20 Hear the word of Yahweh, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah! “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says Yahweh; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he‑goats. When you come to appear before me, who requires of you this trampling of my courts? Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies—I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.”
“Come now, let us reason together,” says Yahweh: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.
If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; But if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword; for the mouth of Yahweh has spoken.
As always, Yahweh, the great Creator, wanted righteousness. He wanted the Israelites to clean themselves from their evil ways. He wanted them to learn to do good, and He gave specific examples of what that meant. He wanted obedience from them. This is also made clear in the following passage from Jeremiah 7:22,23
For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them, ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’ Jeremiah 7:22,23
What does the word “atonement” mean?
In the King James Version of the New Testament, the word “atonement” occurs only once.
Ro 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Oddly enough, it ought not to be so translated! The Greek word καταλλαγη [katallagā] from which it is translated means not “atonement” but “reconciliation”. The previous verse reads:
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Oddly enough, the King James translators rendered the verbal form of καταλλαγη
as “reconciled” in verse 10! Why not the nominal form as “reconciliation” in verse 11?
The Revised Standard Version and other modern versions are consistent in their translation of these verses:
Romans 5:10,11
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation.
It is wonderful to be reconciled to God! We can indeed rejoice that this has been made possible through our Lord Jesus Christ, through His precious blood, through His death on our behalf!
The Greek Words ἱλασμος (hilasmos) and ἱλαστηριον (hilastārion)
The words used in the Greek New Testament and rendered as “atonement” or “atoning sacrifice in some modern translations are ἱλασμος (1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10) and ἱλαστηριον (Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5). Both are derived from the verbal form ἱλασκομαι. The Hebrew word translated as “atonement” is “kippur” and is usually rendered as ἐξιλαστηριον in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, translated about 250 B.C. in the reign of Ptolemy. Note that it differs from the New Testament word only by the addition of the prefix ἐξ (out of ). The verbal form of the Hebrew word “kippur” is “kaphar”.
In the King James Version, ἱλασμος is translated as “propitiation”, that is, an appeasement or conciliation of an offended power. It is so rendered also by Darby, by the Douay translators, and by the translators of the King James Version, and of Young’s Literal Translation.
The translators of the Revised Standard Version render ἱλασμος as “expiation”, that is, the act of making amends of reparation for wrongdoing. This is also the meaning of the English word “atonement.” In current English, “atone” is used in precisely the same way as “expiate.” If I accidentally run into the neighbor’s fence post and break it off, the neighbour may tell me, “You’re going to have to atone for that!” In other words, I’m going to have to “make up for it” in some way, perhaps by repairing the fence myself. In the NIV and the NRSV ἱλασμος is translated as “atoning sacrifice.”
The translators of the KJV and the Douay also render ἱλαστηριον as “propitiation” in Rom 3:25, and in the RSV it is translated as “expiation.” However in Heb 9:5, the translators of the KJV render the same word as “mercy seat”! It is so rendered also by Darby, and by the translators of the RSV, the NRSV, and Young’s Literal Translation. Mercy seat! That meaning is quite different from either “propitiation” or “expiation.”
Perhaps a look at the verbal form of the words would be helpful in deciding the true meaning of the words ἱλασμος and ἱλαστηριον
ἱλασκομαι [Strong’s 2433]
Lu 18:13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ RSV
In this parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, every translation of which I am aware translates ἱλασκομαι as “be merciful”. ἱλασκομαι is derived from the adjectival form ἱλιως, the meaning of which is “merciful”, and is so translated in Hebrews 8:12:
For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more. RSV
Curiously, the RSV translators render the word differently in Heb 2:17:
Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. RSV
Does consistency demand that the final phrase be translated as “to be merciful concerning the sins of the people”? If the verbal form means “be merciful” and the adjectival form means “merciful”, could the nominal forms be rendered as “means of mercy”? Let’s see how the verses would read if that were done:
ἱλασμος [Strong’s 2434]
1Jo 2:2 and he is the means of mercy concerning our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1Jo 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the means of mercy concerning our sins.
ἱλαστηριον [Strong’s 2435]
Ro 3:25 whom God put forward as a means of mercy by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins;
Heb 9:5 above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
We can leave the translation in Heb 9:5 as “mercy seat,” though under Mosaic law it was indeed considered a “means of mercy.”
So it certainly appears that the translations which render ἱλαστηριον and ἱλασμος as “propitiation”, a word which carries the idea of appeasement and averting of wrath are incorrect. Our examination of the passages quoted above would cast doubt even upon the translation of these words as “expiation” or “atonement”. I suggest “means of mercy” as an appropriate translation of these words, a translation that is correct etymologically as well as contextually.
What a mercy the grace of Christ, that divine enablement! This enablement is described in Titus 2:11, 12:
For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, upright, and pious lives in this world.
O gracious Yahweh! Through your son Jesus, and the words with which you have inspired your apostles, help us to understand more fully the means of mercy through the Anointed One, by which you have made available to us the process of salvation from sin. May this understanding help us to more fully appreciate your love and grace, to be better prepared, through your enabling grace, to show others the way to enter the door of salvation, to become your children, and thus to press on toward completion, to be conformed to the image of your son, and to be among the many brothers and sisters of the resurrection, of whom Jesus is the first born.
Paidion,
The New Testament word includes all three. Christ is our mercy seat where our sins are expiated and God’s wrath propitiated. This fits the Old Testament when the blood of the lamb was placed on the doorposts and God passed over the houses because they were covered in the blood. You’re not a Christian