Is it just to allow an innocent person to pay for the crime of a guilty person? Let’s try that out in story form.
A wretched woman stands trial for murdering a husband and wife. The jury finds the woman guilty of all the heinous crimes she is accused of. It is now the day when sentencing will be handed down. The prosecuting attorney was going for the death penalty. The judge agrees that someone deserves to die for these crimes. But everyone in the court is shocked when instead of passing sentence on the guilty murderer the punishment is handed over to an innocent son of the victims.
Hopefully if you were in the courtroom you’d cry out against this miscarriage of justice. An innocent party should not be punished for the guilty actions of another. But what if we added a bit to the story? What if the innocent son of the victim offered to take the punishment upon himself? What if he volunteered for the job?
Such a story would be noble—and it’s the thing of many sermon illustrations—but is it really just? According to Scripture (Proverbs 17:15
), “acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—the LORD detests them both.” No judge in the land would allow for such a thing—especially in a murder trial where the death penalty is in play.
So how in the world can we say that it is not injustice for God to accept such a deal in the death of His Son? If we did the crime, why don’t we have to do the time? To say that God poured out His wrath on His innocent Son, who willingly took the place of sinners, is a bit much for some to swallow. No matter if he volunteered or not, it is unjust to punish a righteous man for the guilt of unrighteous people.
But what if we added something else to our story. What if I said that the innocent son was actually the husband of the murderer. Now, I understand that at face value this does absolutely nothing for our argument. Why should an innocent spouse pay for the crimes of a guilty husband? But such a thing is to misunderstand a fundamental principle of our union with another.
It’s not as difficult of a thing to grasp if we are talking about finances instead of the death penalty. It’s not considered unjust to transfer debt to a husband once he marries a spouse. The justice system have no problem making a willing husband financially responsible for his wife’s student loans. In this regard they consider the two as one.
Now I understand that when we start talking about death penalty instead of student loans it gets a bit trickier. I suppose this is where the analogy might break down a tad. But biblically speaking we are united to Christ in such a way that he actually becomes responsible for our debt. This in part is what 2 Corinthians 5:21 is talking about. When Christ took the church as His bride he took upon Himself her debt.
How can God the Father punish His innocent Son for the sins of an unrighteous people? Because by His willingness to marry this unrighteous bride he was “made to be sin”. Though not guilty of any sin of His own, by His union with a sinful bride, in a very real sense He is no longer the innocent Son.
The man upon the Cross is bearing the punishment of His beloved bride. That is the only way that He could be among the cursed hanging upon that tree (Galatians 3:10-14). Any other reason would be a gross mishandling of justice. I appreciate this point in Pierced For Our Transgressions:
The only way to explain how Christ could have died at all without compromising God’s justice is to say that our sin and guilt was imputed to him. Although Christ was sinless in himself (he bore no guilt for his own deeds), he nonetheless did bear the guilt of our sins. It is ironic that criticism of penal substitution, which claims to be concerned to uphold God’s justice, actually ends up undermining it. (Pierced For Our Transgressions, 248)
Take heart, he has paid our debt in full. This is why he cried tetelestai from the Cross. Through our union with Him and His perfect work, we are debt free and living in His positive righteousness, all by the Father’s good plan and good pleasure. This is great news!
Of course, the idea that Jesus died for other’s sins, so that when we are united with Him our penalty is paid, is brought forth by Romans 3: 21-25… But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God… Read more »
You are wrestling toward some of the fundamental principles of salvation for sure. Jesus was born and lived under the Law of Moses. That fact identified Him completely with Israel, the Jews under Moses. His innocence was the innocence of a Holy Lamb without blemish which was demanded by that Law He was born under. He, being the Son of God, was offering not simply the blood of a animal, but His blood to satisfied the God of Israel for all the sins, past and future, of Israel . Not just sins on a yearly schedule offered at Passover. Which… Read more »
Jim, What was said: Romans 2:26-29 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by… Read more »
Furthermore Jim, In Christ, ethnically speaking, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, even as we read: Ephesians 2:11-22 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself… Read more »
I am a simple layman, my wife would say a very simple layman. I did not know or was not aware that this was an issue with most SBC members how are pretty clear on why Jesus gave his life made us white as snow. Sticking with the Jewish law only the person who was wronged can forgive the transgressor, so I think it is pretty clear. God cannot tolerate sin so he sent his Son to take our sins away. Nothing wrong with refreshing and reinforcing the teaching but my question is if this is really an issue? Is… Read more »
John,
A little bit. Jesus died under a very specific background. That background was Israel under the Mosaic Law. They system did have a sacrifice for forgiveness. But it was a system that never went to the root of their’s and the world’s real problem. That problem was not just the need to be forgiven but the need to defeat what kept gaining dominance or them. That rule was sin and death. Jesus defeated both.
Jim, those sacrifices could never take away sins. Hebrews 10:4, 11
John, Those animal sacrifices could not permanently take away the problem of the effect that Sin and sins introduced into the lives of individuals and the nation Israel but, they did give temporary relief of forgiveness and re-acceptance into the community God, Israel under Moses. My point is, that the Church needs to see this transition from the sacrifices under Moses to God’s sacrifice under His Son to appreciate the full picture of the Gospel message. That lack of appreciation is over-simplifying this work down to a level that ignores too much history. Jesus is fulling engrafted into that History,… Read more »
Thank you. I’d like to read more messages like this one. God bless.
Marriage is only the metaphor to help picture the reality. The reality is the inbeing that we share with Christ when His Spirit is put in us to become one with our spirit—the two becoming one new man in Christ. This “mystical union” brings a new union of human identity, so that the sinner and Christ have now become the same person in the eyes of God’s justice. What He accomplished from cradle to grave (and after, as He is risen), We now get credit for—an ownership in His deeds as if they were our own. The reason that this… Read more »
Mike,
Well-written article.
Hoping you can help clarify a part of it. If I’m reading it correctly, your article presupposes that the Bride was already ‘around’ when Christ paid the price for her sins on the Cross. Maybe I’m off base, but it seems to me that the NT writers conceive of the Church as those who believe in Christ. Only then, do they (we) become the bride of Christ.
IOW, Christ did not die for an already constituted bride. Rather, He made a provision such that those who look to Him become His bride.
Yours in Christ,
Pastor Moose
I believe there is one sense in which Christ did die for an already constituted bride (Ephesians 1:4, Romans 8:29, etc.) Of course there is another sense in which you aren’t technically part of the bride of Christ until you come to him in repentance and faith.
I’m not trying to espouse eternal justification or anything here. Just saying that God is really outside of time and so I believe there is Scripturally speaking a constituting of His bride even before the foundation of the world.
Now that we’ve opened that can of worms….
Mike, That’s double-speak. They who consist only of thought do not really exist. God is outside of time but we are not. Justice must be according to truth, and truth corresponds with substantial reality. Please see my comment above. The reason Federal Headship has to resort to such ideas as an “already constituted bride” is because it has discarded the real participatory existence of all men in Adam, substituting a union that was “constituted” in God’s mind. Your question, “Is it just for the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty?” applies to both Adam and Christ. Eternal… Read more »
Ken,
If we weren’t at the time of the cross how did we have “a real inbeing in Adam” and “actually participated in” his sin seeing how the cross came after Adam?
Ken, Also, did Jesus die for real sins and if so, whose? For when one speaks of the substantial reality upon which real justice relies, how is it that one can die for sins not yet committed? Or how is it He can suffer for my sins when I am not yet real? I am real enough to sin in the garden but not real enough for Jesus to die for my sins? And was it not the purpose of God for Jesus to suffer and die for the sins of His people, even those not yet born, so that… Read more »
Mike, You ask good questions, but they require more than short answers. Southern Baptists hold that because of Adam’s sin, all men are born with a nature that tends toward sin, and yet, every man must choose Christ for himself. So we already know that our progenitor may morally ruin us, while no progenitor may be saved for us. Adam had that opportunity, to “confirm in righteousness forever” all of his descendants, by choosing obedience and passing his probationary test. But since he failed and sinned instead, then natural propagation can only pass along the effects of this fall and… Read more »
Mike, You asked, Also, did Jesus die for real sins and if so, whose? For when one speaks of the substantial reality upon which real justice relies, how is it that one can die for sins not yet committed? Or how is it He can suffer for my sins when I am not yet real? Christ died as a sin sacrifice. There is no (and never was) atonement without the faith of the repentant sinner. Christ’s death only atones for the sins of a sinner after that sinner comes to faith and is indwelt with the Holy Spirit (by which… Read more »
Ken. Thanks for that answer. before i address that, the other question: For whose sin did Jesus die for? Real sins? Only Old T. sins? Sins uncommitted. Like mine and yours? You said that I had an inbeing with Adam. And that my existence was real there in the garden. And yet, I wasn’t. I did not exist before my conception except, if this counts and i think it does, in the mind of God. Might you say my spirit existed with Adam? You could, except with Adam it wasn’t my spirit. Nor was it my body. From that body… Read more »
Mike, As usual, your questions require some length to answer. You asked: For whose sin did Jesus die for? Real sins? Only Old T. sins? Sins uncommitted. Like mine and yours? As I said previously, Jesus died the death of the archetypal sinner. Was what you owed really any different than what I owed or what anyone else owed? Every sinner is due the complete wrath of God against sin. Every single sin is a complete sin-debt against God, and is due the full wrath of God. We all owe that same debt. And Jesus endured the full, complete wrath… Read more »
Mike, You stated: You said that I had an inbeing with Adam. And that my existence was real there in the garden. And yet, I wasn’t. I did not exist before my conception except, if this counts and i think it does, in the mind of God. Might you say my spirit existed with Adam? You could, except with Adam it wasn’t my spirit… I wasn’t until in the womb God made me. That He used body and spirit of others does not make exist before i was conceived. i had no identity outside of the mind of God until… Read more »
The last paragraph in the article summed it up well. We all know the OT was foreshadowing on NT, Jesus paid it all. I am just glad that majority Christians have no doubt why Jesus died on the cross . Many of the old hymns that many churches do not sing anymore explain in so well why we have Victory in Jesus. Thanks to those here who do share their knowledge.
John,
A long time ago…
https://www.facebook.com/dale.kopp/videos/10207442915777403/
Mike, Just thinking out loud here. The cross took place at a certain time. And the death was real, the body suffered and died. But the cross is more than just about a body dying, though it is that. But that alone couldn’t be enough to satisfy the wrath of God or the Lake of Fire would soon consume any human existence thrown in there. Thus the cross was more than natural: it was both natural and spiritual. The separation Jesus endured, the forsaking of Him by His father was more than just a physical death. Thus the death of… Read more »