I know I’ve railed in the past that the notion of vicarious punishment seems flawed to me. Many others have done the same. It seems like it comes up especially often this time of year.
I’m not here to rehash the objections or to condemn those who hold to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. I am here to make a small point and ask a big question.
The small point is that when someone understands the criticism as one against a cruel God, I feel it necessary to point out that this isn’t exactly it. Yes, the story of substitutionary atonement does seem to paint a picture of a morally flawed God – but that wouldn’t mean that God is flawed – it would just mean that the story is flawed.
The big question is how can I understand the thinking behind this? How does a really smart dude – and I love the Boston Bible Geeks precisely because they are so smart – intellectually commit to a story like this:
The answer is that Christ died because God is just. If God were simply to let our sins go, to let us slide, then He is not a God of justice. I’ve met people who chafe on this idea, which they (erroneously) assume paints a picture of a wrathful, angry, sadist of a God. What we forget is that, if we’re honest about it, we all want a God of justice. Do we not want evildoers to be punished? Even the worst sinners among us inherently want justice when we are wronged. A liar lied to is eager for his deceiver to be brought to justice. If God lets us slide, then He lets Hitler, Manson and Pol Pot slide, too. We all want evil to be brought to justice, but the hard consequence of that desire is that we too, are evil, and therefore deserve punishment.
Christ died because God is just, and God cannot do anything contrary to His nature. As such, there must be punishment for sin; a reckoning for what humanity has done. So, in a horrible irony, God Himself endured the worst injustice the world has ever known: God became man in Christ, and made history by being the first and only human ever to walk the earth entirely without sin. He came to heal, to teach, to bring life and restoration to the world. This one, this perfect God-man, was mocked, beaten, and tortured to death by the very ones He came to save. In executing His justice, God endured history’s most egregious injustice.
Now, there are elements of this that I can grok. I can understand what is meant when it is said that God came to heal, teach, bring life & restoration to the world. I don’t believe it is in any literal sense true – but I can understand what they mean. I can even understand what is meant when it is said that we all want a God of justice. Even further, while I don’t agree with the concept of retaliatory justice, I can certainly understand the viewpoint that does embrace it. And, I can certainly understand the notion that we are all in some way “evil” – I can testify to it.
What I cannot understand is the viewpoint that sees any kind of justice, retaliatory or otherwise, satisfied by punishment of the not-guilty. If we want to see Hitler punished for his misdeeds it is because we want to see Hitler punished – not because we want to see someone punished who did no wrong. I can understand the view that God must satisfy justice by punishing Hitler – or by punishing the rest of us. I cannot understand the view that God can satisfy justice by punishing Himself, and forgetting the sins of Hitler – or of the rest of us. If Hitler must be punished, then why is it any less true that Hitler must be punished after God has been punished?
Not just why is it any less true, but what is the state of mind of someone who thinks that it is, and how did they arrive at that state of mind?
In the past, I’ve been guilty of trying to guess that the state of mind of such a person is “unthinking”, and that it was arrived at by blind adherence to dogma. I am going to recant that state of mind – it was wrong. That was me trying to grasp something beyond my reach through dismissive and unreflective reasoning. Instead, I want to approach the question a different way: Now, I’m just asking… is there some underlying logic that I am missing?
There are some answers I have heard already, but I have problems with them. The first is that this is simply a faith commitment in the “God works in mysterious ways” vein. It’s a fine explanation for accepting the orthodox soteriology – but a person holding it would likely not proffer explanations about how this meets “God’s justice” if they didn’t understand it themselves. In other words – the article linked doesn’t say – “this is Justice, even though I don’t understand it.” Instead it says “this is how you can understand the crucifixion – it is Justice”.
The second answer has also never been helpful to me before. It is this: “once you allow Christ to remake your mind, it will make sense to you.” The biggest reason is that it leaves my question unanswered. It tells me that your mind has been transformed by Christ, but it doesn’t tell me what that means in terms of how you understand the necessity of crucifixion. It doesn’t explain to me the nature of that transformation.
I’ve heard lots of stories about why Jesus died apart from the substitutionary atonement story. Most of them, I can get my head around, even though I doubt the truth of them. My own answer to the question of why Jesus died is a pretty prosaic and very indefinite one. This one – substitutionary atonement – defies reason to me. I invite anyone who might shed light on it to share their thoughts with me.
It started out as an illustrative metaphor used by St. Paul when he was going around recruiting converts and planting churches. Other religions had their sacrificial rites of atonement, which could be quite barbaric. St. Paul compared this barbarity to a compassionate God who atoned for all humanity by sacrificing himself — which must have seemed infinitely more just and merciful than the chronic ritual of real blood sacrifices.
However, over time St. Paul’s benign illustrative metaphor hardened into mandatory doctrines — first St. Augustine’s doctrine of substitutionary atonement, which then hardened still further into St. Anselm’s satisfaction doctrine (which layered on an analogy to the feudal duty that serfs owe to their lord), and finally Calvin’s doctrine of penal substitution (which updated Anselm with an analogy to criminal law and the punishment paid by transgressors).
Penal substitution is not the only Calvinist doctrine that has been criticized for making God seem cruel and arbitrary. Fortunately, it also is not the only version of the substitutionary theory of the Atonement, which in turn is not the only acceptably orthodox theory of the Atonement.
Smijer, just happened upon your blog and wanted to add my 2 cents worth.
I went further than you and wanted to know why Jesus had to be born as a human child in order to redeem mankind. Not only that, but he had to be born into a certain family line in a certain town as well.
So this is what my research uncovered. (as simply as I can make it)
Jesus birth was all about credentials. Anyone could have presented himself to the people and called himself “the Messiah”, (many did) but the real one had to have the right credentials. Not only that, but this one also had to be free of defects…perfect, like his counterpart, Adam. The only way to produce a perfect human was to manufacture one by implanting a perfect embryo into the womb of a Jewish virgin. (Only God had the technology at the time to do that)
The whole story is about justice. “Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life”; through his disobedience, Adam lost perfect life, condemning all his offspring to sin and death. This wasn’t their fault and they had no way to extract themselves from the defect of sin that was now programmed into them, resulting in degeneration and death. Jesus had to offer a perfect life in exchange. It wasn’t just about ‘substitutionary atonement’…the fact is no one else on earth was perfect in order to offer “a perfect life for a perfect life”. Jesus volunteered because he was the only one trusted enough by his Father to do the job. He loved humankind that much that he was willing to leave his heavenly existence and become a mortal human being. He was fully aware that his death was going to be awful, yet he still did it. The devil was going to milk it for all it was worth, but Jesus was unmovable in his course.
When humans fell into a sinful course, it wasn’t that they jumped in with both feet….they were conned! Or at least Eve was…in a very cleverly timed maneuver, a rebellious spirit creature saw an opportunity to gain worship for himself from lower creatures. He picked on the younger less experienced one (like he still does today.) According to the Bible, sin came into the world through the man, not the woman. Why? Because it says she was thoroughly deceived but he wasn’t. The devil forced Adam to choose between the love of his life (his new wife when the honeymoon was definitely not over) and the love of his God…..and the rest, as they say is history.
From the account in Job it is clear that the devil has made accusations not only about God’s rulership but also about us and our motives for serving God. This whole situation is much bigger than just human beings…it involves all intelligent creation, all of God’s children, both spirit and human are involved. Rebellion began in the spirit realm so it has to be settled on a universal level.
Our sense of justice comes from being made in God’s image. We have an inbuilt sense of what is right and wrong and we were also created to mirror our Creator in many other ways.
Human beings were not originally designed for death…it was thrust upon them by Adam’s choice. So, dying in our place, Christ makes it possible for us to go back to God’s original plan to have a perfect race of beings who will enjoy paradise conditions on earth forever. Some are chosen from the earth to make up a ruling “kingdom”, but the majority of humans will live right here on earth where God designed them to live in the first place. Paradise lost…paradise regained.
Hope that made some kinda sense.
Peace, Jem
Wanting to as the Doctor’s code says, to “Do no harm”, I haven’t responded until now. This morning, while studying a course taught by Dr. Tony Evan’s daughter, Priscilla, I was led to something that may be helpful in answering some of the questions you posed.
Speaking of the law of Moses and the fact that God revealed Himself even through that law, Paul then spoke of the ministry of Christ.
Sin has blinded us and our minds cannot understand the majesty, glory and love of God except as it is revealed to us by his Son. In the old covenant, the people trusted the word as given by the prophets and Moses as being from God or they turned away. Today God has spoken through the new Covenant and his Son. We may not understand God and all of his reasons, but we can trust what he has given us, his Son. There are plenty of reasons to trust Christ when we see the prophecy that has been fulfilled, transformed lives, the love of God, the empty tomb and the difference it has made in lives ever since Peter’s change along with all the apostles. Not only that, he woos us with his Holy Spirit and the Father draws us. Once I allowed Him to remove the veil, amazing things begin to happen in my life. I was bound by wrong thinking, superstition and fear until Christ set me free. (You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free…)
I hope that you and your family have a great Easter and may God, who loves you, bless you in a special way today.
“It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13
What law is he talking about?
It’s difficult for me to get inside Paul’s head, and I’m being lazy about looking up the context of that passage, but I’m guessing that he is talking about Mosaic/Jewish law, generally understood as it was at the time he lived & wrote.
“The law was added so that the trespass might increase.” Rom. 5:20 God has added a word to the law after Jesus was crucified. See Heb. 7:12b
What law has been added?
I think that Romans 5:20 is not talking about the same issue as Hebrews 7:12. Secondly, I think you are relying on a poor English translation of Romans 5:20 – “added” doesn’t really fit what Paul is saying in my mind. The KJV says “the law entered”. Other translations say “came in”. I believe that this refers to the law as it was “given” (as that was understood in Paul’s day). The interpretation I give is that Paul is explaining the role of the “old” law as it applies to the “new” scheme of Grace that he is formulating in his letters. Basically he is saying that the “old” law was given so that people would be aware of their shortcomings and their need for grace.
Hebrews was likely by some other author with a somewhat different agenda (though with sympathy for Paul’s viewpoint generally speaking). Here, the author is arguing for the imperfection of Mosaic law and its replacement by a new scheme on the grounds that, historically, the law had been “changed” since Moses had given it – with the introduction of non-Levitical priests, and on the grounds that it was short of “perfection”. Hebrews is arguing for a new “Covenant” to replace the Abrahamic covenant, which was only partial, to that author’s mind.
And that’s my best exegesis, but take it with a grain of salt, because I’m no expert!
“It is NOT those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who OBEY the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13
I did not write you for the purpose of agreement. But on the other side of the grave I know you will not be able to disagree with me. Your major worry is Rom. 2:13 for the law of God had been changed and Paul is writing about this change.
I didn’t write for disagreement or for agreement. You asked questions & I tried to answer them to the best of my ability. Far be it from me to argue with someone who has special insider knowledge of life after death.
You had better hope like hell I am not right.
I don’t actually have to hope – I can use logic. If you have two theories (as I’m guessing you do) – one being that God is good, and the other being that God torments people for eternity in hell, then I can deduce that both cannot be true, since the latter is inconsistent with the former.
If in fact God does torment people in hell for eternity, then it follows inexorably from logic that he is not good. If he is not good, then you are probably in as much in danger from a capricious and wicked deity as I am. So you had better also hope like hell that your second theory is incorrect.
I deduce from experience that whatever God may exist is probably not evil, though he may be indifferent. As such, I don’t fear torment after life.
Another point of logic that might encourage the faint of heart: suffering is an aspect of life. Death ends life. Therefore death ends suffering. I’d rather rest on logic than mere “hope”.
See Ex. 34:7, Lk. 20:16-18. So much for your logic.
I saw them, but I still reason that my logic is intact. And, I hope that others who fear human stories of a ghastly afterlife will also find my logic sound.
But now, I feel that we are just being argumentative & perhaps we should leave this discussion for one that is more productive. You’re welcome to the last word if you want it.
Mr.Theodore A. Jones
…just give it up dude, you are going to lose.
Especially going against Mr. Smij…
Now, I have friends on here who are devout Christians, I love them and would never do anything to engage their wrath upon me…but, for arguments sake, I just have to point out a few things here:
1.GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn’t created until the fourth day.
2. GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
3. GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
4. GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
5. GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.
6. GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)
7. GE 6:6. EX 32:14, NU 14:20, 1SA 15:35, 2SA 24:16 God does change his mind.
NU 23:19-20, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17 God does not change his mind.
8. GE 7:1 Noah was righteous.
JB 1:1,8, JB 2:3 Job was righteous.
LK 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.
JA 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective).
1JN 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).
RO 3:10, 3:23, 1JN 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous.
9. GE 11:9 At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world.
1CO 14:33 Paul says that God is not the author of confusion.
10. GE 15:9, EX 20:24, 29:10-42, LE 1:1-7:38, NU 28:1-29:40, God details sacrificial offerings.
JE 7:21-22 God says he did no such thing.
Source:
http://atheism.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&zTi=1&sdn=atheism&cdn=religion&tm=34&f=00&tt=14&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
And your point is?
Well, with all due respect, if you cant see “my point” from my previous post, then I am just wasting my time here…eh?