The external and the internal

Baptism (the sign) and thing thing signified are inseparable, and must be held closely together in our thought, so closely in fact that we can attribute the effect of one to the other.

'There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.' (The Westminster Confession of Faith 27.2)

This isn't some pseudo-Catholic theology carried over by the writers of the WCF. The NT writers also saw the two as inseparable; consider:

• Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16)
• Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38)
• In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead (Colossians 2:11-12)
• let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water (Hebrews 10:22)

Hebrews 10:22 is particularly helpful to think about:

'That phrase, which does not set up an antithesis between the internal and the external bur rather in a positive "rhetorical parallelism" joins the inner and the outer in "one indivisible reality".' (p. 110, G Wainwright, "Baptism III: Acts, Hebrews, General Epistles, Revelation" in IVP Dictionary of the NT)

In the Reformation there was a great conflict in which there was really three parties. The Roman Catholics who held that external actions were all that mattered, the Anabaptists and other radicals who held that the only the internal ('spiritual') things mattered, and finally the Magisterial Reformers who refused to separate the two. The external actions condemned us if they were not mirrored by internal reality. Our internal faith had to rest on external things (the Word and the Sacraments both of which the Radicals rejected) and could not exist apart from them. Luther saw the need for both better than most (Calvin sometimes almost seemed to view the external things as only accommodations to our weakness and not theoretically necessary):

new spirits assert that faith alone saves, and that works and external things avail nothing, we answer: It is true, indeed, that nothing in us is of any avail but faith, as we shall hear still further. But these blind guides are unwilling to see this, namely, that faith must have something which it believes, that is, of which it takes hold, and upon which it stands and rests. Thus faith clings to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life; not through the water (as we have sufficiently stated), but through the fact that it is embodied in the Word and institution of God, and the name of God inheres in it. Now, if I believe this, what else is it than believing in God as in Him who has given and planted His Word into this ordinance, and proposes to us this external thing wherein we may apprehend such a treasure?

(Baptism, The Large Catechism)

But, and this is important, Luther recognised that the order of external and internal things was of huge importance, and had to be got right:

Now when God sends forth his holy gospel he deals with us in a twofold manner, first outwardly, then inwardly. Outwardly he deals with us through the oral word of the gospel and through material signs, that is baptism and the sacrament of the altar. Inwardly he deals with us through the Holy Spirit, faith and other gifts. But whatever their measure or order the outward factors should and must precede. The inward experience follow and is effected by the outward. God has determined to give the inward to no one except through the outward. For he wants to give no one the Spirit or faith outside of the outward Word and sign instituted by him [...]

Observe carefully, my brother, this order, for everything depends on it.

(p.224, Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1925), in Selected Writings of Martin Luther ed. T.G. Tappert)

Book buying

As someone with a bit of a problem with buying too many books I just thought I would share some knowledge.

The Book Depository is great! The prices are usually a few pence below Amazon's. And I never thought it would be possible to say this, but the service is even better! I have bought lots of books from them and they always deliver promptly without any fuss. The range is huge. They sell through Amazon marketplace but also from their own site.

I thought you may like to know as you are probably like me a little suspicious of Internet shops that you haven't used before.

Abebooks is also a great place to check out. Especially for second-hand books. It is basically Amazon marketplace for books old and new, but with more information on each book and more sellers.

How being creatures gives us dignity

A recent realisation for me has been that the unbridgeable divide between Creator and Created, between God and Human, does not just honour God as God but also gives human beings dignity.

Karl Barth comments:

It is only the heathen gods who envy man. The true God, who is unconditionally the Lord, allows him to be the thing for which He created him. He is far too highly exalted to take it amiss or to prevent it.... There can be no doubt that with an autonomous reality God does give to man and to all His creatures the freedom of individual action

(CD III/3, p. 87, HT Colin Gunton)

The key thing in that quote is that human dignity is a gift. Because it is not ours, then the gift can be a massive as the giver can afford and as permanent as the giver is unchangeable in his attitude towards us.

The dignity of any human being lies in the indissoluble intertwining of element and instituting word. It is attributed to him or her — bestowed, given on loan — by the One who promises and gives himself unconditionally to humankind: namely, God. Thus, my dignity as a human being is attributed to me "without any merit or worthiness on my part". This dignity is at the same time categorically withheld from me and categorically granted to me; it is given to me totally without merit—and precisely because of this, it cannot be taken away from me by any other human.

(p.279, Oswald Bayer, "Self-Creation? On the Dignity of Human Beings" Modern Theology 20:2 April 2004)

Because all that we have is from God he is not going to jealously want back what he has given us. He does not resent our creative activity but encourages us in it.

the figure of Prometheus, who epitomizes the very notion of self-creation, is often played off against the creator-God of the Christian creed. But this is unjust because the "Prometheus" of the young Goethe revolts against a jealous and merciless Zeus and not against the One who—as the Almighty and at the same time Merciful One—grants the dominium terrae to humankind, entrusting them with it, all the while remaining himself free from envy.

(ibid, p. 276)

Because we are "acknowledged as a person prior to invoking any language of merits or qualities" (p. 280) we have dignity whether we are bright or stupid, pretty or ugly, physically strong or weak. This understanding should "utterly revolutionize the bio-ethical debate" (p. 280) but it should also encourage me and enable me to be creative without fear, and love without evaluating the worthiness of those I love.

God Crucified

Richard Bauckham's God Crucified lived up to all the hype. Very highly recommended... but I can't be bothered to explain why because it will take me ages.

Worms just a little lower than the angels

Chris Oldfield comments that "the gospel dignifies who we are by calling us into question."

Few people I have read calls humanity to question more than John Calvin. Marilynne Robinson (Pulitzer Prize winning novelist) observes that the extreme disparagements of humanity under sin by theologians such as Calvin comes from an understanding that we have dignity as creatures made just a little lower than the angels (Psalm 8:5).

Cauvin [Calvin] employs a characteristic language [...] including extreme disparagements of the physical body, and more generally of humankind under the aspect of sin or fallenness. [This is done] in the service of an extraordinarily exalted vision of the human soul. It is a form of hyperbole - purity is corruption, pleasure is illusion, wisdom is folly, virtue is depravity, by comparison with the holiness that can be imagined, not as the nature of God only, but as the nature of humankind also [...]

The self-abnegation that is always the condition of a true perception of the self or of God can only be understood as the rigorous imagination of a higher self. This is more complex than it sounds. Cauvin has an unsettling habit of referring to himself or to any other human being as a "worm." [Understood as a reference to Psalm 22] the word describes temporal estrangement from God and at the same time ultimate identity with Christ. In context it is the farthest thing from a term of contempt.

(pp. 182-183, The Death of Adam: Essays on Modern Thought)

Thank you Steve for lending me that book all those years ago.

The human-Godward movement freely given to us in Christ

James Torrance (last quote from him I promise - but thanks Glen for the recommendation) sums up a strength and (possible) weakness that I've read in much modern systematic theology (which I have just started reading in the last year):

The God-humanward and human-Godward relationship (movement), both freely given to us in Jesus Christ. When we considered the existential model of worship, we noticed that the God-humanward movement of grace is given to us in Christ. In virtue of it, we are summoned to respond in faith, in decision, in repentance and obedience [isn't this common?]. But the weakness here is that the only human-Godward movement is ours. In other words, it does not do full justice to the meaning of grace, for it short-circuits the vicarious humanity of Christ. Grace does not only mean that in the coming of Jesus Christ, God gives himself in holy love to humanity. It also means the coming of God as man, to do for us as a man what we cannot do for ourselves - to present us in himself through the eternal Spirit to the Father. In other words, the human-Godward movement, in which we are given to participate (as in worship and communion), is given freely and unconditionally.

(p. 53, James B Torrance, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace)

There is something important and true in this, and it has connections with Lutheranism's 'universal justification'. But I would like someone to tie this perspective into conversion, regeneration, and the work of the Holy Spirit in believers. In short I feel the wonderfully objective and past nature of our salvation has blossomed, but the subjective and present nature of it has been left undeveloped and the two have not grown together (c.f. Colin Gunton's comments).

I am left wanting balance. Sadly, Pia Desideria while historically interesting does not show how it can be achieved.

For you, even if you do not know it

These words from the French Reformed Baptisimal liturgy are beautiful:

Little child, for you Jesus Christ has come, he has fought, he has suffered. For you he entered the shadow of Gethsemane and the horror of Calvary. For you he uttered the cry "It is finished!" For you he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and there intercedes - for you, little child, even though you do not know it. But in this way the word of the Gospel becomes true. "We love him, because he first loved us."

That describes the foundation of my belief that it is right to baptise infants. As James Torrance expands:

The work of salvation is from beginning to end the work of God. Baptism is the sign of what the triune God does. God forgives, God cleanses, God regenerates, God adopts, God sends the Spirit of his Son into our hearts whereby we cry "Abba, Father." Our response to this is to say amen in faith- our passive recipient response. There is nothing more passive than dying, being buried, being baptised.

[...]

Two things are important here: (a) Christ did not die for adults only! He died for adults and children..."Little child for you..." (b) God's grace is not conditioned by anything in us, not even by our faith! Nevertheless, baptism must always be an act of faith in the Christ who died for us and for our children. It is not a sign of our faith, but of the Christ in whom we believe [...] "...for you, little child, even though you do not know it..."

(pp. 76-80, James B Torrance, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace)

Watching in the night

'At the end of 430 years, on that very day, all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt. It was a night of watching by the Lord, to bring them out of the land of Egypt; so this same night is a night of watching kept to the Lord by all the people of Israel throughout their generations.' (Exodus 12:41-42)

'But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to stay awake. Therefore stay awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning— lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. And what I say to you I say to all: Stay awake.' (Mark 13:32-36)

'And they went to a place called Gethsemane. And he said to his disciples, "Sit here while I pray." And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled. And he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death. Remain here and watch." And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." And he came and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, "Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words. And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy, and they did not know what to answer him. And he came the third time and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come. The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand."' (Mark 14:32-42)

With great thanks to my friend Jonny who showed me the Exodus connection.

And in case you ask I don't really understand Mark's 'Little Apocalypse'. I find it interesting how much of what it talks about happened in the Passion story, but I can't tie it up all neat and tidy. However, that does make clear that the focus is on the cross as the centre-point of history around which all else turns (even the remaking of the world).

Who do you say I am?

In his lectures, Christology, Dietrich Bonhoeffer made the plea that in theology we give priority to the question of who over how, and that we always seek answers to the question of how in terms of who.

[...]

We can too readily assume that Christianity is meaningful, useful, relevant, even true, only if it seen to offer solutions to [...] practical problems. We can too readily subsume theology (as Ritschl did in the nineteenth century) under the category of means and ends.

(pp. 69-70, James B Torrance, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace)

My prayer as I 'lead' a new round of Christianity Explored from tomorrow that I remember this. Too often recently I have stressed how Christianity meets felt needs, and so missed much of the Gospel which is a person (as Mark says at the beginning of Mark's Gospel; 1:1).

Mark's Gospel, which Christianity Explored looks at, is deeply concerned with Jesus' identity. I didn't really get it at the time but I am sure that that is why the forerunner of UCCF's FREE Gospel Project was named 'Identity'. [I remember that project particularly well as that 'Identity Gospel' was the first time I ever read the bible as an adult.]

Too the end of reminding myself who Mark says Jesus is, I have just quickly read through the Gospel and noted down all the instances of people explicitly saying who they think Jesus is (a very incomplete way of looking at it I know, but hopefully helpful).

• Mark: "Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (1:1)
• God the Father: "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased" (1:11)
• Man with an unclean spirit: "Jesus of Nazareth...the Holy One of God" (1:24)
• Unclean spirits: "You are the Son of God" (2:11)
• His family: "He is out of his mind" (2:21)
• The scribes from Jerusalem: "He is possessed by Beelzebul...He has an unclean spirit" (2:22-30)
• Disciples: "Teacher" (4:38, followed by stilling of storm when they ask:"Who then is this", v.41?)
• Man with unclean spirit: "Son of the Most High God" (5:7)
• Those from the ruler's house: "Teacher" (5:35)
• People at the synagogue in his hometown: "the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon" (6:3)
• Some people: "John the Baptist...raised from the dead" (6:14)
• Some others: "He is Elijah" (6:15)
• Some more others: "He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old" (6:15)
• Herod: "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised" (6:16)
• Syrophoenician woman: "Lord" (7:28)
• Some people: "John the Baptist" (8:28)
• Some others: "Elijah" (8:28)
• Some more others: "one of the prophets" (8:28)
• Peter: "You are the Christ" (8:29)
• Peter, James and John: "Rabbi" (9:5)
• God the Father: "This is my beloved Son; listen to him" (9:7)
• Father of a boy with an unclean spirit: "Teacher" (9:17)
• Disciples: "Teacher" (9:38)
• Rich Young Man: "Good Teacher" (10:17) and "Teacher" (10:20)
• James and John: "Teacher" (10:35)
• Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, the son of Timaeus: "Son of David" (10:48) and "Rabbi" (10:51)
• Crowd: "he who comes in the name of the Lord" (11:9)
• Peter: "Rabbi" (11:21)
• Pharisees and some of the Herodians: "Teacher" (12:14)
• Sadducees: "Teacher" (12:19)
• One of the scribes: "Teacher" (12:32)
• One of his disciples: "Teacher" (13:1)
• Judas: "Rabbi" (14:45)
• Jesus: "I am [the Christ, the Son of the Blessed]" (14:62; in response to the High Priest's question; 14:61)
• Jesus: "You have said [I am the King of the Jews]" (15:2; in response to Pilate's question)
• Pilate: "the King of the Jews" (16:9)
• Soldiers (mockingly): "King of the Jews" (16:18)
• The chief priests with the scribes (mockingly): "the Christ, the King of Israel" (16:32)
• Centurion by the cross: "the Son of God" (15:39)
• Angels: "Jesus of Nazareth" (16:6)

[The different colours represent different groups of people, and the bold words are those that echo Mark's introduction in 1:1]

I glean a few things from this (which are quite obvious, sorry):

1. The book is structured round the key confessions of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. It is clear that both are important.
2. God the Father's declaration at Jesus' Baptism, and the Transfiguration is as important as Peter's in 8:28. The dramatic events around the cross also have the feeling of a voice from heaven.
3. The trial before Pilate and the High Priest is very important, as is the verdict given by the sign above the cross, and the Centurion.
4. The disciples at no point during the Gospel come to a realisation of who Jesus is, with the one possible exception of Peter's confession in 8:28.
5. The outsiders are the people who see the truth; those with unclean spirits, the Syrophoenician woman, Blind Bartimaeus and the Centrurion.

Churches doing student mission

Here is a question for my UCCF affliated readers: How does UCCF see churches doing student mission? And how does this relate to how UCCF sees mission to students being done on campus?

I had an interesting conversation with a Fusion affliated person the other day who provoked me to thought. I love UCCF and explained that they love the church (as Dave Bish is always saying) but couldn't answer that particular question for myself.

... just wondering.

PS. Sorry for the use of the word 'affliated' and for bothering everyone else with things that maybe are not that important.

The roots of Evangelicalism

Colin Gunton mentions in passing that:

Evangelicalism arises out of: (a) the Reformation and (b) Pietism.

I've heard that before but cannot remember where. The question is do we know our own history? How far are we aware of where we have come from.

I would say we are doing better at remembering one of our parents (the Reformation) and less good at remembering the other. I would even go so far as to say that Evangelicalism may be suffering for it.... but that may just be from my limited view in the corner I inhabit. But there is room for us to remember all our history much more than we do.

Once we remember we may then attempt to reflect.

Colin Gunton comments that to the extent Evangelicalism relies on the Reformation it is more objective, and on Pietism more subjective. PT Forsyth comments:

'after the Reformation period, [theologians] dwelt upon justification until they lost sight of sanctification altogether. Then the great pietistic movement had to arise in order to redress the balance.' (The Work of Christ)

...I wonder whether I should read Pia Desideria... its only 136 pages apparently.

What do you want me to do for you?

Mark is quite subtle in some ways about how he expects his readers to respond to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Rico Tice in Christianity Explored this evening pointed us to two different responses to Jesus.

The two accounts are clearly meant to be read together as they immediately follow on from one another and contain exactly the same question from Jesus: 'What do you want me to do for you?' (10:36, 51). Clearly they are also important as they occur immediately before the entry to Jerusalem and the Passion narrative.

James and John's respond to the question: 'Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory' (v. 37). Bartimaeus responds: 'Rabbi, let me recover my sight' (v. 51).

It is difficult at first to see how the two answers relate to one another. Presumably one is supposed to be the opposite of the other. But how?

I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but I think the answer can be gathered from 3 observations:

1. Jesus asks the question what he can do.
2. Jesus' response to James and John is to ask whether they can do what he will do (ie. drink the cup he will drink). Their answer is 'yes', and Jesus almost grudgingly confirms that they will, but adds that this will not make him approve them to sit at his side.
3. The link verse between the two narratives is 'the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many' (v. 45).

Reading the narrative of the request of James and John on its own may lead you to conclude that the point is to teach us that to follow Christ means to take up our cross; to be 'slave of all' (v.44). However, reading the two narratives together shows that this is secondary, although essential. First, we must accept that we like the blind beggar have nothing to give to God we can only receive.

This is a difficult truth to take to heart.

In the Christianity Explored course the final question is 'If you could ask God one question, and you knew it would be answered, what would it be?'. One of our group tonight confessed it would be 'What do you want me to do for you?' According to the Gospel that is the question that Jesus asks!

'nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything' (Acts 17:25)

Can God be known?

'Can God be known? Yes, God can be known, since it is actually true and real that He is knowable through Himself. When that happens, man becomes free, he becomes empowered, he becomes capable - a mystery to himself - of knowing God. Knowledge of God is a knowledge completely effected and determined from the side of its object, from the side of God. But for that very reason it is genuine knowledge; for that very reason it is in the deepest sense free knowledge. Of course it remains a relative knowledge, a knowledge imprisoned within the limits of the creaturely. Of course it is especially true here that we are carrying heavenly treasures in earthen vessels. Our concepts are not adequate to grasp this treasure. Precisely where this genuine knowledge of God takes place it will also be clear that there is no occasion for any pride. There always remains powerless man, creaturely reason within its limitations. But in this area of the creaturely, of the inadequate, it has pleased God to reveal Himself. And since man is foolish in this respect too. He will be wise; since man is petty, He will be great; since man is inadequate, God is adequate. 'Let my grace suffice for thee. For my strength is mighty in the weak' holds good also for the question of knowledge.'

(p.24, Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline)

I really, really love that quote. The only think I don't quite understand is quite what Barth means by it being 'free' knowledge.

The challenge is to ask how I am rejecting that revelation and the promise of knowing God it contains, and choosing to 'know' God in other ways?

The sole and proper witness of God

'God himself is the sole and proper witness of himself' (John Calvin, Institutes 1.11.1)

'He who we can know only through his own utterances is a fitting witness concerning himself' (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity I, xviii)

I'm re-reading Calvin's Institutes this year. A little way in I'm thinking that I need to do some reflection on what I'm learning from it.

Perhaps the thing I'm most struck by so far is Calvin's determination to let God describe who God is. I am perhaps more aware of this because of reading a little Karl Barth recently, but it is great seeing that conviction that God is the proper witness of himself worked out in Calvin's explanation of what God is like.

Christ and Culture

James KA Smith is an interesting fellow. He came to York (and indeed my church) last year for several months, but I never got to know him. I would love to have the time to read some of his books.

Anyway his review of Carson's Christ and Culture Revisted is really exceptional. It makes you realise the issues at stake and ask yourself: how would I right the book better? Smith doesn't really give you the answer, and I don't know it. Which is both disconcerting, and challenging.

Perfection and Presence: God With Us, According to the Christian Confession

If you fancy listening to 6 hard-core theological lectures, John Webster gave The "Kantzer Lectures in Revealed Theology" just over a year ago at the Henry Center.

The blurb reads as follows:

Dr. Webster presented the first Kantzer Lectures at Trinity on September 11-18, 2007. These six lectures offer a theological description of the double theme of the Christian gospel, God's perfect life which he has in himself and God's presence with his creatures.

The series began with an account of the source of the Christian confession of God's perfection and presence, which is God's loving gift of himself as Lord and companion of creatures, on the basis of which God may be known, feared and loved above all things. This was followed by an account of God's perfection: the fullness, majesty and glorious freedom of the life which God has from and in himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As the one who has life in himself, the perfect God also gives life to creatures, and sustains them by his presence. The nature, modes and history of this presence were explored in a Trinitarian analysis of God's works in creating, reconciling and bringing creatures to completion. Finally, life in the fellowship of the saints was presented as the creaturely counterpart of the presence of the perfect God.

Taken as a whole, the lectures were an exercise in positive or revealed theology, seeking to display the instruction of the gospel and commend the consolation which it offers. The series brought together pastors, professors and students from various institutions and churches around the Chicagoland area. The lectures will be published in book form by William B. Eerdmans.

Webster describes it more briefly as a meditation on Immanuel, 'God with us', which does not diminish that it is 'God with us' and keeps in mind the uncreated perfection of God.

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).