Board index ‹ Salvation

[You people are nuts]

Is it moral to believe that the responsibility for your wrongdoings can be absolved by the suffering of an innocent man? Could you, in honest heart, let someone you love pay your debts or give up their life for the evil things you've done?

[jimwalton]

Yes, because there are different ways of looking at the substitution concept. On the one hand, if someone wants to pay a monetary debt in our place, we're grateful. On another hand, if someone innocent wants to serve a jail sentence for a convicted criminal, we think that's not fair, and rightly so. Jesus' sufferings for us are more like the first rather than the second, according to the Bible.

If you have a debt of, say, $50,000, and a friend of yours steps up and offers to pay it for you, just because he's your friend, you would (I bet) gladly accept. It's the same thing here. Each of us has a debt, a debt of sin and the payment is death (Rom. 6.23). So instead of money, the debt is life. Jesus stepped up and offered to pay it for you, just because he loves you. He has a right to be generous with you if he chooses. You may logically object, "Life is different from money." Not as far as the definition of debt is concerned. You may object that money debt is different from punishment debt. Let's look at the technicalities of the law. Supposing a slave back in colonial America was due to receive 40 lashes, and another man stepped up and offered to take the 40 lashes in his place. Technically as to the law, as long as the 40 lashes got delivered to a back, the law was served. That's the point here. Technically, as long as the punishment is paid, justice is served. But is it fair?

It's fair on two points: The first is that Jesus volunteered to be the substitute. He had every right to make the decision, and he chose to take the punishment for you (Jn. 10.17-18). Doesn't he have a right to be generous towards you? The second point would be that Christian Trinitarian theology says that the Son and the Father are one, and so whatever the son does, the father also does. Thus, the father didn't place the punishment on anyone other than himself, so you can't fault him for cruelty. In a courtroom analogy, the judge doesn't throw the punishment on some innocent, objecting bystander, but takes it upon himself. Doesn't he have a right to be generous towards you?

[Shifty Eyes]

First, are you really trying to say that Jesus' sufferings are more like a monetary fine than a jail sentence? That's insane. You even go on to say that "instead of money, the debt is life". Well guess what, that's not a monetary debt. That's a blood debt.

Second, who is Jesus paying in our stead? In your slave example, Jesus is paying a corrupt slave master who is hell bent on giving out 40 lashes regardless of who receives them. This slave master is acting unjustly. If he thinks the slave deserves the lashes, then he must either give the slave the lashes or give no one the lashes. Giving some innocent guy lashes he doesn't deserve, even if he volunteers for them, is unjust. So in your analogy, I am the slave and Jesus is the innocent guy. Who is the slave master?

Third, if Jesus is also the slave master whipping himself for something his slave did, then he is an insane masochist. If he is a judge punishing himself for something the defendant did, then he is an insane masochist. Either punish the guy who committed the crime, or annul his punishment.

Transferring punishments from the person who deserves the punishment to someone who does not deserve the punishment is insane.
Transferring punishments from the person who deserves the punishment to yourself is masochistic.

[jimwalton]

> First, are you really trying to say that Jesus' sufferings are more like a monetary fine than a jail sentence?

Absolutely. That's what the Bible teaches. As I said, sin has a variety of meanings and analogies in the Bible. But in this case, sin is like a debt. To be out from under it is more like a redemption than the commutation of a jail sentence. In Romans 6.23 sin is spoken of in terms of wages, making the analogy as if sin is personified as if it's a fee (salary) being paid out in exchange for "service". Man is under sin, sold to it as a slave, he serves according to its rules, it owns his body, and it pays out wages in the form of death. Jesus' redemption buys us out from under that debt/slavery/salary system and sets us free.

> Second, who is Jesus paying in our stead?

The slave master was just an analogy to explain a substitution principle, but it doesn't apply to the type of substitution that Jesus paid for us. It was just to make a point that "as long as the punishment is paid, justice is served," but we can't press the analogy where you are trying to take it.

From whom were we ransomed? It's the wrong question. The Bible cares about "From what were people ransomed?," not "From whom were people ransomed?" The picture of that of substitutionary atonement, and being ransomed from our sins, not particularly paying the ransom *to* somebody.

> So in your analogy, I am the slave and Jesus is the innocent guy. Who is the slave master?

Nobody. The analogy is not addressing that point.

> Third, if Jesus is also the slave master whipping himself for something his slave did, then he is an insane masochist.

He's not. Nobody's whipping anybody. I guess I used a bad analogy in this case, because it's leading your mind into all kinds of inappropriate directions. Sorry. Nobody's being whipped. Nobody's a cruel taskmaster or a corrupt slave master except sin personified.

> Transferring punishments...

Biblical atonement is at least two things: (1) Jesus paying the debt for us (which is death), and in the process (2) bearing our sins in our place by enduring God's judicial attack on sin ("wrath"). In the action of his death on the cross, Jesus paid the debt and bore God's judicial pronouncement, and when he rose from the dead he conquered death (and therefore sin) to break its power over those who turned to him in repentance.

[Shifty Eyes]

> Biblical atonement is at least two things: (1) Jesus paying the debt for us

You keep saying this and yet you refuse to answer who is demanding that we owe a debt, insisting that "that's the wrong question". It's the "wrong" question because it reveals the ridiculousness of penal substitutionary atonement. God is both the one demanding that we "owe" him our lives and the one "paying" himself with his own life in our stead. If he doesn't want us to owe him our lives, then he could simply not demand that we owe him our lives.

Of course, this doesn't even touch on the inherent injustice of demanding one person's life as payment and then accepting someone else's life instead. God is demanding my life as payment for my sins. This is not a monetary fine. This isn't a simple case of needing to repair a broken item and allowing an innocent volunteer to pony up the cash in my stead. This is a disciplinary fine. It is not going towards repairing anything. disciplinary fines are non-transferable. They exist to teach the person who committed the crime a lesson. Allowing someone else to pay the fine in place of the guilty party is unjust.

[jimwalton]

As I said, there is something inherently unjust about an innocent person serving prison time for a guilty person. That just doesn't cut it. But there's nothing unjust at all about someone stepping in to pay a debt for someone else. That's a very just and acceptable practice.

Christ died to satisfy the necessary judicial action of God (the wrath of God). If you need a focal point for penal substitutionary atonement, that's it. But the debt isn't being paid to him, and he's a not a cruel slave master, as you quickly tried to paint in a previous post. Look at it this way: God is the city planner who created SimCity to work in a good and perfectly balanced way. The actions of the residents of Sim act in a way to throw his perfect plan out of kilter. (It's no skin off his back, but the design is no longer balanced. There's a strong underground crime network undercutting the virtues of the city and ruining its businesses. So God institutes a plan to pay off the debts of those who are oppressed by the whole system, bring health in its medical facilities, clean up the streets, rustle up the criminals and send them to jail, and restore order and balance to the city. Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are the mechanism to bring all this about. When Jesus dies, debts are paid up, healing is brought to bear, sin is judged and contained, and the police force is enhanced to keep it this way. You can't say the "debt" is paid to God, because that's not really what's going on, though it's his displeasure all of this clean up took place for his behalf. You can't say the "debt" is paid to Satan, because that isn't accurate either. Back to what I said. It's the wrong question to ask, "From whom have we been ransomed?" The whole system was askew, and payments went every which way, as appropriate, to do what needed to be done. True, he was doing this to hold back the wrath of the city planner, who was not just going to stand around like an idiot and let the whole thing go to hell in a hand basket. And he didn't. Rather than just destroy the "game", he instituted a solution, and the system was brought back into balance.

The Bible doesn't care about "From whom were we ransomed?", because that's the wrong question. The cares about "From what were people ransomed?," not "From whom were people ransomed?" The picture, instead, is that of substitutionary atonement, and being ransomed from our sins, not particularly paying the ransom *to* somebody.

So in this sense, yes, he gave his life for us. The city was so corrupt eventually we would have all paid with our lives. He took that for us so the city could be cleaned up, so we owe him our lives to show our love and appreciation for what he did.

God isn't "demanding my life as payment for my sins." I've already covered this ground. It's a simple matter of cause and effect, like gravity. When you sin, you intentionally and willfully separate yourself from Life, who is God. When you separate yourself from life, there is only one possible consequence: death. He doesn't *demand* your life as payment for your own sins. This is not a disciplinary fine in the least. Think of it this way: You had a good paying job, and then you up and quit. Is your boss disciplining you by not giving you more paychecks? No, that was your choice to quit and the natural consequence of separating yourself from your source of income. Are your parents to blame? Is this a punishment from them? Of course not. You did it to yourself. It's a monetary "fine" that you brought on yourself. You're the one who quit and who separated yourself from your source of money.

Now, is it unjust if some benefactor steps in and agrees to pay you what you had been making, just because he loves you and wants to benefit you? 'Course not. If he wants to be generous with you, that's his business. But it's certainly not "unjust" or "idiotic." Or suppose this benefactor offers you another job, a different one. That's within his right. And it's up to you to take it or not.

God is not demanding your life as a payment for your sins. By sinning, you cut the ties with life all by yourself. God is stepping in as a benefactor despite the decisions you've made. He's inviting you, by contrast, to link up with him again and share his life. He wishes to save you from your own choice of death. But again, that's something you must choose.

And all of this is a free gift from God, your benefactor. Instead of complaining about how unfair this is, a more appropriate response would be to say, "Wow. Thanks. I appreciate that. Can we be friends? I'd like to know you better."

[Shifty Eyes]

Death is not a form of payment that can go towards repairing a city's failing infrastructure. That's ridiculous. How are you going to "bring health in its medical facilities, clean up the streets, rustle up the criminals and send them to jail, and restore order and balance to the city" with Jesus's dead body? Money can fix these problems. Hard work can fix these problems. That is why it's not unjust for innocent volunteers to provide money and/or hard work in order to fix these issues that they did not cause. But it is incredibly unjust (and incredibly stupid) for innocent volunteers to kill themselves in the hope that it will somehow fix things, because it isn't going to fix anything.

What is being fixed by God killing himself, and why couldn't he fix it without killing himself? If you refuse to answer who the debt is being sent to, at least answer what the debt is going towards repairing.

[jimwalton]

OK, I guess I just have to stop using analogies because you wrongly take them to places they were never meant to go. They are analogies of the sacrifice, not allegories where every detail makes a point I'm trying to make.

Here's what happened, then, without analogies. Sin created an imbalance, a debt, and the consequence of incurring the debt was death to the debtor, because sin is a separation from life. Jesus paid the debt for humanity by dying as an innocent. The only way to pay the debt of death is by death. And when he came back to life, it proved that death was not strong enough to hold him. He conquered it.

[Shifty Eyes]

You didn't answer my question. What, if anything, is being fixed by God killing himself? The only time it is just for an innocent person to pay the debt of a guilty person is if something is going to be fixed with that debt. If the debt isn't going towards repairing something that the guilty person damaged, then that means the debt is purely disciplinary in nature. Therefore, it is unjust to have an innocent person pay this purely disciplinary debt.

Here are some examples:
Tim broke a window in town hall. He is fined $100. The local judge decides to forgive him and pay to have the window fixed himself. That's okay.

Tim took his pants off and made obscene gestures in town hall. He is fined $100. The local judge decides to forgive him and pay the fine himself. That's not okay. The fine wasn't fixing anything. It was a purely disciplinary punishment. Nobody can pay it but Tim.

Do you see where I'm coming from here? I just want to know what makes death more than a disciplinary punishment for sin. What did we break that needs repairing?

[jimwalton]

Good question, and well-expressed. Thank you. What was fixed was the indictment of "sin" on a person and the sentence of "death". To use your analogy, Shifty Eyes broke life. He is fined death—the only possible sentence, since what he broke was life. The local judge decides to die as a way to pay to have life fixed himself. It's a simple solution—life for life: a debt was incurred, the judge stepped in and paid the debt himself. What we broke was life itself, by sinning against its source, author and giver.