Welcome to the Inverted Orthodoxy Podcast! We're Blake, Kyle, and Doug the pastors from Living Springs, here to take you on a weekly adventure through the twists and turns of faith. Got questions? We've got answers, and sometimes more questions! Join us as we explore, celebrate, and embrace the beautiful complexities of belief. This weeks episode covers the following questions:

1. 0:34 into episode

AER AER-

Sorry this AER is so long... But It got me thinking!

I typically agree with most of pastor Kyle's insights... but here are Some pushbacks on his points about Jesus "maintaining his purity" on the cross.

I’m struggling to see the full logic of Kyle’s argument. An explanation might be nice? I know it's a tough topic to address as you audience is broad, though.

The point in question:

“I think his purity would have needed to remain intact” (12:00 - Episode 424)

Jesus is the perfect unblemished lamb.

And biblically, when the New Testament calls Jesus the Lamb, it consistently emphasizes moral innocence and sinlessness rather than physical untouchedness (If that’s a word, lol) - see 1 Peter 1:18–19 and Hebrews 4:15.

An unblemished lamb according to “the law”:

• “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old.”

- Exodus 12:5

• “If it has any blemish, if it is lame or blind or has any serious defect, you shall not sacrifice it to the Lord your God.”

- Deuteronomy 15:21

• “You shall offer a male without blemish from the cattle, from the sheep, or from the goats.”

- Leviticus 1:10

Importantly, the inspection of the lamb occurred prior to sacrifice. The act of sacrifice itself involved violence, bloodshed, and death – the physical destruction of the body did not retroactively disqualify the offering. (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16)

And of course we have the prophetic account:

• “Nor shall you break any of its bones.”

- Exodus 12:46

This is shocking, because even in the brutality of crucifixion, this specific Passover detail is preserved - suggesting intentional theological fulfillment rather than a requirement of total bodily untouchedness.

Alluding to: John 19:36

This meant:

• No disease

• No injury

• No deformity

• No visible imperfection

But again, in the Old Testament sacrificial system, this referred to the fitness of the offering before sacrifice, not the absence of suffering during the sacrificial act itself. (Milgrom; also Gordon Wenham, The Book of Leviticus)

If we are relating this to Jesus… I feel as though most scholars would argue, for Jesus as the sacrificial lamb, this meant (alluding to Pilot also claiming, “I find no guilt in him.”:

• Sinless

• Pure

• Set apart

• Examined and found without fault

We see MANY examinations of Jesus’ innocence: Pilate - John 19:4; Herod - Luke 23:15; Judas - Matthew 27:4. This mirrors the inspection period of the Passover lamb in Exodus 12:3–6.

But it seems like you are claiming Jesus would have needed to remain physically pure/without blemish up until the point of death on the cross?

If that standard were applied strictly in a physical sense, the Roman scourging alone — which historically caused severe bodily trauma — would already introduce “blemishes” prior to crucifixion. (William D. Edwards et al., “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ”)

Yet Jesus was flogged… beaten… striped… mocked… he was weak… certainly with some physical blemishes before being crucified… He was sinless yet broken. And I’m sure we would all agree that someone being sexually abused is not a sin on their part.

Yet to me… This distinction seems to matter profoundly: victimization does not equate to moral impurity. Scripture consistently locates Jesus’ perfection in His obedience and sinlessness, not in an absence of physical... or even... I argue... sexual suffering - Hebrews 5:8; 1 Peter 2:22–24. (Thomas R. Schreiner, The Nature of the Atonement, on sinlessness vs. suffering in Christology)

I’d argue that the act of Atonement encompasses not just the crucifixion… but also the journey up to the cross… That Jesus was literally… in these moments… taking on the sins of the world. (N. T. Wright, The Day the Revolution Began).

Isaiah 53:3–5 presents the suffering servant as despised, afflicted, wounded, and crushed -language that clearly includes pre-crucifixion suffering as part of the redemptive work.

So how could you rule out Jesus taking on certain sins for the sake of remaining sexually pure? It seems like a potential slippery slope.

Especially when 2 Corinthians 5:21 states that He “became sin” for us — a theological category far broader than physical categories of purity.

Now, I’m not saying Jesus most definitely was sexually abused.. I don’t think there is enough primary source evidence to come to a conclusive conclusion, and the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention sexual abuse… yet we can’t rule it out as a possibility.

And historically responsible scholarship would agree here: the Gospels explicitly record stripping, flogging, mocking, and public humiliation, but do not explicitly record sexual assault.

However... The Bible doesn’t explicitly mention a lot of things, yet theologians theorize on all sorts of stuff these days.

For example, the Gospels themselves state that not every detail of Jesus’ life and ministry was recorded - see John 21:25.

As for primary sources… we KNOW the Romans were brutal. Romans viewed anyone who wasn’t Roman as the lowliest of lows. Less than human. (Seneca comes to mind as a source).

Ancient writers like Josephus and Seneca describe crucifixion as intentionally degrading, dehumanizing, and designed to maximize shame as well as pain.

Only non-Roman citizens were crucified.

With rare exceptions for treason, crucifixion was primarily reserved for slaves, rebels, and non-citizens - those considered socially disposable.

Non-humans would not have been written about. It was beneath them.

Which also explains why most surviving accounts come from elite Roman perspectives rather than victim testimonies.

Friends and family members of crucified victims were likely not Roman either… which meant they were more likely to be illiterate.

And public executions were meant as deterrent spectacles, not as events documented wit=8[-9i 4ergh empathy toward the condemned.

Also… if you wrote in opposition to the Romans… you died.

This creates an inherent historical documentation bias toward imperial narratives and against victim-centered accounts.

Likely not a ton of Primary source documentation from the victim’s perspective floating around for these reasons.

Which is a standard limitation acknowledged in Roman historiography broadly, not just in crucifixion studies.

Jesus did have people write about him, but still, there are certainly pieces missing from Jesus’ ministry, and crucifixion, that we do not get to read about in scripture.

Again… John explicitly affirms this selectivity in recording events, reinforcing that the Gospel accounts are theologically purposeful narratives rather than exhaustive historical transcripts.

Also… in the modern era… publicly shaming someone (splitting their garments)… parading them around naked… would be seen as a form of sexual abuse. Not so much in antiquity… but still, someone today may relate to that reality.

Again… not arguing entirely in favour of this perspective (I do recognize the influence of prominent modern feminist theology on this topic)… yet I don’t think we can negate the possibility.

2. Over 8 years of doing this podcast. Where would you say your greatest shift in a theological view has happened and why?

3. Nov 17- On November 16th Pastor Doug spoke about the reality of the resurrection and used a slide graph to show the varying views. My question is where do each of you see yourselves on that graph and what is one thing that hinders your own view of resurrection?

Nov17- In what ways do you see the satanic panic still alive and well in the western church.

Nov 17- In the words of Nt wright, what if the purpose of following Jesus was to bring heaven to earth, and not to try to get to heaven. How do you think this would work?