Now, of course, every Christian would boldly declare that God is just; nay, that God is absolutely just. Whatever He does is right. God defines right. God doesn't do what is right; what is right is what God does. And, as I indicated, we must hold that line. So now we have to ask the big one. If God is just, how was it just for Christ to pay for our sins? More particularly, how was God just pouring out His wrath on His Son? How was that not child abuse?
First, consider the problem. Generally speaking the objections to all of this are emotional. "If God punishes His own child for our sins, that's mean!" "Only a monster would take out His anger on His own child." "That's not fair!" Those are just a few of what I've heard. The objections to this are many and I want us to be careful to think it through and to think it through biblically so we have some confidence of getting a solid grasp on it.
Now, let's look at the premises. First, God is holy (Isa 6:3; Rev 4:8), so He hates sin (e.g., Psa 11:5; Psa 5:5; Psa 97:10; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Isa 59:2) and, therefore, must punish sin. God is love (1 John 4:8), so He desires that all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). God, then, is on the horns of a dilemma. How does a Holy and loving God punish sin and save the sinner? That's the first premise; there is another. The Old Testament makes it clear that God hates sin and that, as the author of Hebrews says, "Under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." (Heb 9:22) So what did God institute in the Old Testament to handle the problem? He instituted a substitution. He installed a death for sin -- a shedding of blood for sin -- by substituting a spotless lamb for the sinner. Now, mind you, that lamb was not guilty of a thing. That lamb was innocent. But God allowed for the blood of a lamb to be the substitute shedding of blood for sin that His righteous wrath against sin required. Those two premises form the basis for this discussion. 1) God is holy and hates sin and God is loving and desires all to be saved. 2) In the Old Testament, God established the concept of the substitute shedding of blood to save sinners.
Enter the Son of God. Unlike the lamb of old, Jesus arrived on the scene by choice (Php 2:5-8). Similar to the lamb of old, Jesus was perfect (Heb 4:15). (I say "similar" because the lamb was without physical blemish and the Lamb of God was morally and spiritually without blemish.) So Father and Son conspired to offer a substitute suitable for salvation -- the Son. The Father -- the Judge of all the Earth -- was under no obligation to save anyone and the Son was under no obligation to save anyone, but the Father in His love and mercy chose to satiate His just wrath against sin in the voluntary sacrificial substitution of His Perfect Son. I could go on about this, but I can't say it any better or clearer than Paul did.
For by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it — the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation 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. It was to show His righteousness at the present time, so that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom 3:20-26)While we were without hope ("by works of the law no human being will be justified") and fully condemned ("all have sinned"), God chose to appease His anger with the voluntary shedding of His Son's blood ("propitiation by His blood") and supply for Himself the price we owe for sin ("redemption that is in Christ Jesus"). Paul claims that this act demonstrates God's righteousness -- His justice. It portrays Him as both just (as a Holy God) and justifier (as a loving God).
We're left, then, with the question. Is it unjust to punish someone for someone else's sin? I think there are two key components in that answer. First, what is punishment? The dictionary defines punishment as "a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc." We get that. The dictionary does not say on whom the penalty is inflicted. That is, punishment is simply about penalty for offense. The second component, then, would be to ask ourselves, "Is it just to penalize someone else for an offense?" We would all agree that it is never right to punish someone for someone else's offense, but what if it is by choice? If a son gets a speeding ticket and his dad pays it, is the court unjust for accepting the payment from the father? I don't think so. The court would be unjust if they fined the father for the son's speeding ticket, but not if the father simply volunteered. So I would say that the voluntary nature of the taking of a punishment on behalf of another would not constitute an injustice. And since Christ clearly volunteered, I'd have to say it wasn't unjust of God to accept His voluntary payment on behalf of sinners.
As I said before, there are a lot of emotions tied up in this. To many of us it "just doesn't feel right." I get that. But we know that our feelings are not to be trusted. What do the facts say? What does God's Word say? Scripture says that God accepting on our behalf the punishment for our sin inflicted on His Son demonstrates His righteousness (a synonym for justice). I'll have to set aside the emotional objections and go with that. There can be no injustice in God. I don't think we can rightly, rationally, or biblically argue otherwise.
1 comment:
Thank you for helping to clarify this truth. I knew God can't be unjust, but I was having difficulty seeing how punishing someone else for my sin was just. Thus broke down the issue perfectly.
Post a Comment