He took our punishment

If you fancy reading my first attempt at an essay on theology for a long time you can read below. Please feel free to blow monster size holes in it, but bare in mind that I am far from trying to say everything about the Atonement (if you even could). It is about 3500 words and came out of this conversation so is the result of an already busy week's reflection.

1. Introduction

Several hundred years before Jesus Isaiah chapter 53 speaks of a servant who is hated, rejected and suffers 'for us'.  Onlookers think that he is being punished for something he has done, but Isaiah tells us that he was being punished for 'our sins', not his.

This is as difficult for us as onlookers to Jesus' death to understand as those onlookers Isaiah describes.  Tom Smail asks the question that has been asked by many others before: 'By what right or justice can punishment be imposed on anybody except the person who has committed the offence? Is the bearing of punishment not one of those things that cannot be done by one person for another' (p. 85, 'Can One Man Die for the People?', in John Goldingay (ed.), Atonement Today).  The reason for this is that 'guilt and punishment are not like fines, things that can be incurred by one person and settled by another.  Intrinsically by their very nature, and morally by every rule of justice, they are inseparably attached to the person who, by what he or she does and is, has incurred them' (p.78, ibid).

There are two assumptions under this objection.  The first is that what was happening at the cross closely resembles of the modern human law court.  HE Guillebaud explains how Christians have often been at fault in leading to this assumption:

it is difficult for our minds to think of Divine things without using human analogies, but these analogies are often very dangerous [...] It must be admitted that "conservative" preachers and writers, in their desire to make the doctrine clear, have sometimes used human analogies in an indefensible manner, and have thereby unintentionally given real ground for objection (p. 146, Why the Cross?)

There are several ways in which what is happening at the cross differs from that of the modern human law court.  The primary difference may be that where we can only imagine distinct parties, at the cross beside the criminal 'there is only One, Who is Judge, Wronged Party, King (or Law), and Substitute' (p.147,ibid), and even the distinction between Substitute and criminal is not absolute as we shall see.

The other assumption underlying the objection is that we know what justice is.  In this essay I will focus on the bible's understanding of justice and explore how according to this the punishment of our sins in Jesus is just.

2. Who's justice? 

There are as many understandings of what is 'just' as their are individuals on the planet.  Some people consider it just that a thief has his hand chopped off, where as many others cannot think of anything more unjust.  More at home are debates about the justice of penalties for speeding and illegal downloads.  One person's justice is another's injustice.

However, despite the arguments of some, this has not led most people to conclude that there is no such thing as justice, or that it is totally unknowable.  In the midst of this confusion attempts have been made to describe a theory of justice which can form a basis for objective decisions about what is just and what is not.  Sometimes such theorists have thought justice is something 'out there' waiting to be discovered, while others have been happy to consider that it is a human creation. 

If justice is a human creation then, like the gods in Terry Pratchett's novel Small Gods, different forms of justice grow or shrink in power according to the number of believers they enjoy.  But as the atheist Terry Practchett demonstrated for religion in his novel, this understanding of justice can make no demands and is open to ridicule.  But even if justice is 'out there' the problems that have been found with every theory of justice show that while we may come more or less close to discovering justice no-one has ever found it.

In contrast to our theories which may be more or less just, or our practice of justice which is also imperfect, God is presented in the Bible as the one who 'does no wrong' (Deuteronomy 32:4) and in whom is 'no injustice or partiality or bribery' (2 Chronicles 19:7).  All of our justice is tainted by self interest and inadequately protects the powerless, but God's justice is characterised by total fairness.  He 'does not show favouritism' (Romans 2:11) and defends the cause of the fatherless, widow and foreigner (the least powerful in Ancient societies; Deuteronomy 10:17-18).

But God is not perfectly just because he obeys a standard that is 'out there' apart from him.  The Bible recognises that this would mean there is a god whom God chooses to obey.  God would no longer be the 'Alpha and Omega' (Greek A-Z; Revelation 1:8) but would be a second power, and a secondary source of all good things.  In short he would no longer be God.  For this reason Solomon asks God for his justice (Psalm 72:1) because justice belongs to God, and has no existence apart from him.  Because justice is found in God 'we must let God's character and actions define our vision of justice rather than letting our vision of justice define our expectations of God' (p. 11, David McIlroy, A Biblical View of Law and Justice).

Philosophically this makes sense, but is it morally acceptable?  Describing justice as defined by God seems a bit like Richard Nixon's comment in his interview with David Frost that the President can on occasion do something illegal because 'when the president does it that means that it is not illegal', by definition.  That comment disgusted the world because it was recognised that the President is under the law as much as any other citizen.  Justice is not flexible to the whims of the most powerful.  Might is not right.  Clearly, there is an important difference between Richard Nixon and God in that Richard Nixon is only human, and according to our belief that all human beings are equal one has no ability to define justice which binds everyone.  But another difference is hinted at by the writers of the Psalms constant pleas to God to remember his justice and act according to it.  Just like their pleas for him to act according to his love and promises these pleas recognise that God is consistent and does not change in his dealings with us.  We can trust him because he is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8).  Unlike Richard Nixon does not mould justice as it suits, but acts justly always because he only acts according to his own unchanging nature.  In one sense he is bound to act justly, but only because he is bound to act in accordance with his own nature.

In the first chapters of Genesis we are told how Adam and Eve ate of the tree of 'knowledge of good and evil' (that is in biblical terminology the ability administer justice).  They grasped at the ability to judge things for themselves, rather than trusting God's judgment.  We still like to do the same thing but should recognise that our taking judgment upon our own shoulders has brought injustice to the world.  We should let God take the place of judgment and not judge him.  This is an act of faith that God is just, but he unlike anyone else has proved himself by the consistency of his actions. 

Having said that we cannot pull God down from his proper place as the source of justice, the question can still be asked how it is that it was that Jesus could be killed for sins he did not commit.  We can still seek to understand how God can be consistently just when he punishes Jesus in our place, and yet states that: 'he who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord' (Proverbs 17:15); and that 'no man can ransom another' (Psalm 49:7).

We can begin to understand this by looking at what we have already briefly considered: our inability to be perfect judges.

2. Reaching for the moon: Human justice
 
Human justice is different to God's justice both in the abstract, and in practice. 

Human beings find it impossible to fully grasp justice in the abstract.  We are unable to say describe exactly why something is just or not.  Nevertheless, we are able to say true things about justice.  Similarly, we cannot perfectly practice justice, not simply because we are sinfully self-interested, but also because we are finite creatures.  Nevertheless, we can still administer true justice to a degree.

An important reason we cannot administer perfect justice is because we cannot know everything. Even if we can perfectly know the external events that occurred we cannot judge perfectly. 

We recognise that in most cases a criminal must not only do something against the law but must also have mens rea (a guilty mind).  However, we are unable to even perfectly understand our own minds, never mind anyone else's.  In contrast God can search our heart and know the full extent and nature of everyone's guilt (Jeremiah 17:10; Revelation 2:23).

We also recognise that we are not isolated individuals and responsibility can be shared.  In English law conspirators can be punished to the same extent as those who do the actual act of committing a crime, and incitement can provide a defence to assault.  Judges may be lenient to individuals who have had a life which makes their crime more 'understandable'.  But really we are extremely limited.  A complex web of experiences, choices and influences may have brought an individual to the dock.  A slightly neglectful parent, an exam result, or the time in which you were born are all factors which lead to you doing this or that then.  In addition, while the same criminal act may lead to different outcomes, even ultimately good.  There is always both corporate as well as individual responsibility which makes human justice so limited in its affect.

'There is no such thing as the absolutely individual man with whose acts [...] All men are members of a society in which they live and move and have their being morally, and in all they do, of right or wrong they both affect and are affected by the body to which they belong.  This has to be kept in mind and leads to two apparently contrary inferences.  On the one hand, the scope of the sinner's responsibility is immensely enlarged.  He does not sin, any more than he lives, to himself.  His act tells not only on himself and on God, but on the society of which he is a member. [This] means that reconciliation [and justice] will be a greater work than might at first have been anticipated - more far-reaching and more difficult.  It must embrace in its scope not only the individual [...] but the society to which he belongs, and in which that bad action has originated unmeasured evils which he never contemplated [...] On the other hand, the consideration of man's essentially social nature has sometimes seemed to extenuate his personal guilt.' (p. 191-192, James Denney, The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation)

Recognising the human limitations our practice justice should be different to God's practice of justice.  They should be aligned but we should recognise that God's judgments will always be different to ours, and must be to be just.  For this reason God forbade Israel from judging corporately:

'Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.'  (Deuteronomy 24:16)

We may see this commandment as self-evident but while it was unique it 'is set against a tendency in the biblical world to impugn whole families for the offences of a member of them' (p.363, JG McConville, Deuteronomy).  Indeed 'even Roman law, as codified by a Christian Emperor, permitted the destruction of the family and close associates of a man found guilty of treason against the state' (p. 35, GE Anscombe, 'Prophecy and Miracles' in Faith in a Hard Ground: Essays on Religion, Philosophy and Ethics).  But God's prohibition on corporate punishment by the state, does not prevent God from saying in the same book that:

'I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.' (Deuteronomy 5:9-10)

If God's justice is different to ours does that mean that we have to give up reaching any understanding of how God could be just in punishing Jesus? I think that while we can only ever understand it imperfectly we can make some steps towards understanding it, and those steps involve grasping more of how corporate identity works, when in our modern Western culture has minimised it.

3. Perfect Justice

While always holding individauls responsible for their actions, God also regularly acts on the basis of corporate identity.

'For example, in Joshua 7, thirty-six Israelite soldiers lose their lives in battle on account of the Achan, and his family members are then executed with him.  In 2 Samuel 21:1-14, seven of Saul's sons are executed for their father's sin [...] Similarly, there are many examples where people receive blessings from God because of the righteousness of others, such as the sparing of Mephibosheth because of the oath between David and Jonathan (2 Sam. 21:7; cf. 1 Sam 18:3; 20:8, 17, 42; 23:18) and the reprieve granted to all Isarel because of the humility and righteousness of King Josiah (2 Kgs 22:9-20).' (p. 246-247, Steve Jeffery et al, Pierced For Our Transgressions)

We are familiar with the idea of corporate identity even if corporate responsibility seems is largely ignored.  If we describe ourselves we usually do so in relation to other people.  I may have many identities such as that of a British citizen, a socialist, a Manchester United supporter, or someone who dresses like middle-class white male.  Some of these I consciously choose to make part of my identity, some I drift into, and some I am born into.  I share in the glories and shame of those identities.  I glory in the win of my favourite team and am ashamed of the crimes of my country.  Similarly I can give a good name to members of my family, or reduce employers expectations of all Bristol University graduates. 

Some identities may be central to my existence, and some I hold to loosely.  But my identity is not solely dependant on me as an individual.  Some socialists may refuse to recognise me as someone like them, but some may.   I may choose to identify myself as a citizen of Iran, but if the Iranian government don't acknowledge me as such my identity may be damaged; but then it may not if they refuse to acknowledge me because I oppose the present regime.  The complexity of human relationships require an infinite god to untangle them. 

The Bible considers it just that Jesus should die the death that is deserved by us because God sees us as sharing a corporate identity.  Similarly it is just that we should receive eternal life that belongs to Jesus alone because of that identity.  Jesus talks of us as part of his kingdom and his family (Matthew 12:49-50), the apostle Paul talks of how we are the 'body of Christ' (Ephesians 4:12), the apostle Peter calls the church a nation and people belonging to Christ (1 Peter 2:9), and John says the church is married to Christ (Revelation 21:2).  All these are corporate descriptions of our union with Christ.  To the early church every good thing that the church enjoys is enjoyed only because we are 'in Christ', that is in united to him.  'In Christ' we have eternal life (Romans 6:23), freedom (Romans 8:2), holiness (1 Corinthians 1:2), wisdom (1 Corinthians 4:10), victory (2 Corinthians 2:14), and a favourable verdict from God (Galatians 2:17).

Martin Luther describes how we share what belongs to Christ, as we are united in one identity with him:

'[faith] unites the soul with Christ as a bride is united with her bridegroom.  By this mystery, as the Apostle teaches, Christ and the soul become one flesh [Eph. 5:31-32].  And if they are one flesh and there is between them a true marriage  indeed the most perfect of all marriages, since human marriages are but poor examples of this one true marriage - it follows that everything they have they hold in common, the good as well as the evil [...] Christ is full of grace, life and salvation.  The soul is full of sins, death, and damnation.  Now let faith come between them and sins, death, and damnation will be Christ's, while grace, life, and salvation will be the soul's; for if Christ is a bridegroom, he must take upon himself the things which are his bride's and bestow upon her the things that are his [...] By the wedding ring of faith he shares in the sins, death, and pains of hell which are his bride's.  As a matter of fact, he makes them his own and acts as if they were his own and as if he himself had sinned' (pp. 18-20, On Christian Liberty)

Martin Luther mentions that we are united with Christ by faith.  That is by believing that he came and identified with us, and identifying with him we share his identity and so his life and favourable verdict from God.

Many of the onlookers to Jesus' death did not want to identify with him.  He seemed of little account, and was suffering the punishment of death.  None of us like to think that we deserve death, and that the place of punishment is where we belong, but if we do then we can identify with the man suffering punishment for sins.  Wonderfully though that means we can also identify with him as he is raised to new life.  Our unification is not just intellectual or emotional though.  Like marriage, citizenship, and so many other identities it is also expressed in ritual.  So the Apostles called on people to believe, 'repent and be baptised...in the name of Jesus Christ' (Acts 2:38), that is into his identity.  As Paul says we are baptised into his body (1 Corinthians 12:13); into his death and so into his resurrection (Romans 6:3).

We have no right to claim an identity with the Son of God if he does not will it, nor if the judge rules it invalid (the Father judges sin in Jesus, and Jesus will judge the world).  Just as I cannot claim the citizenship of France just because I believe it I belong there, I cannot claim my citizenship in heaven with Christ unless he wills it (Philippians 3:20).  Thankfully, we know that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all desire for us to identify with Christ and share in his riches.  The Father who called the universe into existence out of nothing, calls us into unity with his son (1 Corinthians 1:9) whom he sent (John 8:42).  The Son 'made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men' (Philippians 2:17).  The Holy Spirit takes up residence in us, so we are united with Christ (1 John 4:13). 

Christ identified with us long before we identified with him, and in fact it is because of this loving act that we then love him (1 John 4:19).  We are told that we were included in Christ before the foundation of the world by the will of the Father (Ephesians 1:4).  The Father happily sent his Son to the world to be our representative before him (1 John 4:14).  Jesus happily and without coercion identified with us by becoming human and sharing our flesh (John 1:14) and shared our suffering and death (Hebrews 2).  Just as we were baptised into him he was baptised into us.  Everyone of the Gospels records how John the Baptist was baptising people who realised that they needed forgiveness for their sins, and who desired to be washed clean of all that they had done.  Jesus joins all these people on the banks of a river and joins in the same ritual.  John the Baptist objects, pointing out that he is the one man who does not need washing, but Jesus chooses to identify with those who recognise their sin to 'fulfill all righteousness', that is to achieve his saving purpose (Matthew 3).  His hanging on a cross receiving judicial punishment alongside two deserving criminals is the centre of his identification with sinful humanity.  But his power, life and holiness is greater than the whole worlds weakness, death and evil.  Death is not the end for him as it is for us apart from him, but leads to new life and not a verdict of condemnation but the declaration 'this is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased' (Matthew 3:17).  The amazing thing is that the same declaration can be made of us if we are united with him (Romans 8:14, 1 John 3:1).