AHASUERUS, DARIUS, CYRUS, and GROTIUS
Hugo Grotius’s governmental or rectoral theory of the Atonement should have been the last gasp of Substitutionary theories of atonement. Yet at least two more of significance followed. John McLeod Campbell (1800-1872), a 19th century Scottish professor of theology and pastor, building on a passing remark by Jonathan Edwards, Sr. (1703-1758), devised a theory of Christ’s vicarious repentance (but, as Leanne Van Dyk has argued, not technically substitutionary repentance, although that may have been the raw undeveloped idea behind Edwards’ original speculative remark). Opening the 20th century, Robert C. Moberly (1805-1903) developed a further variation on this, vicarious confession.
All these varieties of atonement doctrine play off the possibilities that are imaginable to derive from vicarious or substitutionary actions of Christ “in the place of” or “instead of” sinners.
The premial alternative to all of the above (to mention no others) plays off the rewarding possibilities inherent in the worthiness of Christ’s obedient faithfulness to God. This results in benefits due directly to Christ, which he, by right, may give to whomever he pleases. Yet he is not arbitrary. In accord with the Old Testament covenantal promises and prophecies, “which cannot be broken,” God is both pleased by faith and pleased to reward faith with the benefits of His Kingdom. Likewise, God’s Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, the perfect image of his Father, acts under identical motives to dispense his bounty from God on the very same grounds as he himself was justly awarded: faith in God according to His covenanted promises.
God awards sinners who believe His Proclamation about His raising Jesus Christ, His Son, from the dead, by giving them, for the sake of Christ’s own personal faithfulness to the death, portions of the rightful award He bestowed on His Son for that perfect and exemplary obedience to His will, as expressed in Scripture. There is nothing remotely comparable among vicarious theories to this logic of direct premial ultra-compensation to the Lord Jesus Christ as God’s judicial execution of justice in repayment for Christ’s criminal crucifixion.
Jesse, you may risk fooling yourself by sidestepping the inevitable judgment against the “government” that would dare penalize the Son of God with a punishment—even a token one—“just to prove” something about government necessity that he by no means deserved. That kind of government itself deserves to fall! My dear brother, all of these substitutionary, vicarious, or penal doctrines that dare to penalize and condemn the Lord Jesus Christ, the absolutely sinless Son of God, may be, if I may be so bold, only so many doctrines of demons afflicting honest, pure, truthful Biblical doctrine.
You make a splendid start in your book, Natural Ability, by showing how very unjust it is to punish anyone at all for anything in the least, under any circumstances, that they do not deserve. (You thereby risk the wrath of Grotius, who appears to be quite doctrinaire about equivocating on his definition of “punishment”! But, after all, what choice does he really have since he knoweth not the category “premial,” and even he cannot tolerate full-on punishment of the Savior without at least a definitional amelioration?) But then you pirouette 180 degrees and march forward heedless of consequences to assert the “righteousness” of a government that insists on its prerogative to indulge in that precise injustice for its own precious reasons! It’s only a charade! Sneak a look behind the curtain, Jesse. This “government” so concerned for its own perpetuity that it would trample the Just One needs to be taken down, humbled, even as the Law of Moses has been demoted. It competes with the Kingdom of God itself! Therefore it must be ground to powder by “The Stone cut out without hands” (Daniel 2:34-35, 44-45). As Jesus Christ is raised up, such Humpty Dumpty governments must all fall down, and there is no help for them. We must not get entangled in putting forth a hand to prop up such decrepit, oppressive establishments. I urge and admonish you to put such a theory out to dry.
The true and premial justice of God exposes it as a counterfeit, just another weary substitute to seduce God’s holy saints away from the Gospel truth and pattern of sound words. Do beware, my wonderfully fearless friend, lest you build on sand and suffer loss in your vital ministry instead of building on the Stone of God’s Rock-solid Foundation. The premial Gospel renders obsolete by its absoluteness all previous means of absolution, all prior human experiments in government over the works of God’s hands.
God had no “interest”—indeed, it was not in “the public interest,” seen in its full divinely royal dimensions—in promoting, advancing, “honoring,” or “upholding” the primitive wooden laws of ancient oppressive empires such as those of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Ahasuerus, Darius, or Cyrus. God’s didn’t “keep” their laws, He dodged their laws; He found ways around them—miraculous ways! God, as usual, was ever mindful of His own always-coming Kingdom. (He had already set the precedent, of course, by the founding events of ancient Israel whereby He folded up the proud native civilization of ancient Egypt for more than four centuries for presuming to enslave and cruelly oppress His people over a similar span of time.)
So also “when the time was fully come,” God sent His own Son and immediately proceeded to dodge Herod’s decree to slaughter the infants in Bethlehem (although He “surfed,” so to speak, Caesar’s decree that all the inhabitants of his empire get registered). That was only the auspicious kickoff, however. Jesus learned how to dodge mobs out for blood as well as virtual assassins, along the way. In the bargain, he mastered the art of dodging crafty questions meant to make him look stupid, dangerous, heretical, and treasonous. But at the last, having fulfilled his educational, healing, and training mission in sterling fashion, he deliberately, strategically surrendered to an armed mob and submitted to a plot to execute him according to “public justice” and bury him where he could do no more “harm” to “public welfare” or “public interest.”
Alas, he tricked them! Jesus knew full well his Father’s character of strict justice and that, as usual (indeed, Jesus had been all along revealing, manifesting, and displaying his Father’s “tricky” character—like Father like Son…), God would pull a fast one right out of His sleeve to GET AROUND THE GOVERNMENT yet again. Sure enough. After barely a decent two days, and while his murderers were congratulating themselves on their official governmental and public “success” at doing in “public enemy #1” (Barabbas notwithstanding) or catching some much needed sleep after a couple of all-nighters, he, uh…ESCAPED! OH MY GOD! Never truer words were exclaimed. By God, he did it again and managed to GIVE THEM THE SLIP! This is worth a hearty belly laugh! It was the “same old Story” even by that time. Still the Devil and his henchmen were clueless. And the Old, Old Story just goes on and on, winning victory after victory, placing enemies under his feet. ONWARD SHALL HE LEAD!
Jesse, might I suggest that the governmental or rectoral theory is, in effect (good intentions aside) “raised up against the knowledge of Christ”? I appeal to your conscience here. This theory isn’t perhaps the worst one out there. Penal satisfaction is arguably the worst (although we would probably want to soften that judgment by adding that it may stand as a textbook example of good intentions leading to unintended consequences). But, as I quipped earlier, would you be satisfied with ranking “Second Worst”? Not likely.
~to be continued~
The Premial Atonement 