IT’S NEVER RIGHT TO DO WRONG TO DO RIGHT
The adage, “It’s never right to do wrong to do right,” applies emphatically to the Atonement as it actually, historically and (hopefully needless to add by now) premially unfolded. Three cheers for the God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) Who could engineer a truly, profoundly, surprisingly, triumphantly just Atonement without “needing” to sully His reputation with insinuations of “divine child abuse,” nor even of “governmentally necessary wrath” to “punish” an innocent Person, dubiously justified as “voluntarily” undergone, so that the guilty could escape their “just deserts.” God will have none of it! His transcendent solution even caught the angels totally off guard! What a Savior!
One of the reasons God hates sin so much is precisely because a person’s own sins themselves bring further evils to those all around them in radiating circles of misery. Now, are we to allege that those “secondary,” “reflex” evils are “divine punishments” on all those “secondary victims”? This is what both penal substitution and governmental substitution would claim.
Lady Justice might better be depicted with an eye patch instead of a blindfold so far as her dominant practice in Western nations is concerned. For although virtually every dictionary definition (shouldn’t those still count for something amid the more airy reckonings on this subject?) of “justice” includes both penalty and REWARD, and every dictionary definition of “sanction” includes both penalty and REWARD, and every dictionary definition of “retribution” includes both penalty and REWARD, and every dictionary definition of “repayment” includes both punishment and REWARD, and even “avenging” implies punishment of one party to AWARD DAMAGES to another. Yet modern “justice” systems routinely cast a blind eye toward the rewarding/awarding or premial duty of justice. The grim result is that the scales of justice are thrown off balance. Instead of indifferently (that is to say, un-self-interestedly) dispensing to each defendant her just due (dikaioma)—both punishment to the lawbreakers according to their deserts, and reward to the law-abiding, according to their deserts—Lady Justice keeps an eye peeled to make sure penal justice always gets meted out, yet not-so-benignly neglects the rights or just due of the victim
Theologians by the trolley load have played into this overlooking of premial justice and winking at penal justice so that what Christ deserved in exchange for his unjust punishment is thus entirely missed and never dwelt upon. Such theologians are quick to trot out their pet interpretations about the Cross beings God’s “doing,” which is to say, God’s punishing of Christ as a “substitute” on behalf of sinners deserving “exactly that amount,” if not precisely that kind of punishment. In their version of “the Gospel,” Christ NEVER GETS DONE JUSTICE FOR HIS FAITHFUL OBEDIENCE TO GOD AT ALL! (Or if he does, they’re keeping the fact very successfully under their hat.) SOMEHOW THAT’S SIMPLY NOT NECESSARY ACCORDING TO THEIR PLAYBOOK. IT’S NOT EVEN PART OF THE STORY…THE GOSPEL STORY!
ARGUING TO INSTEAD OF ARGUING FROM THE BIBLE
How is it that penal satisfaction theologians like A. M. Stibbs, Leon Morris, J. I. Packer, John R. W. Stott, John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and so many, many other Evangelical and Reformed authors of highest esteem can be so doctrinaire about claiming the Bible’s endorsement and authority for their pet notions? From my observations, it seems that they are arguing to the Bible instead of arguing from it. They are pushing synthetic ideas onto Scripture instead of pressing Scripture for its own concepts and categories by straightforward analysis. They simply have not been willing to exalt the Bible’s own native terminology above their own “concluded” dogmas. Instead, they shift and shuffle Scripture’s hard data to make it come out “right” in their own more domesticated terms—ones they can comfortingly pet during private devotion and safely stroke in public shows of orthodoxy…but which foster proud sects and divide the body of Christ.
Jesse, it seems to me that all enthusiasts for a penal solution to the Atonement must beware lest they be rebuked by the Lord, “Ye know not what mind ye are,” as were the disciples who would have called down fire from heaven onto their antagonists. Jesus saved us by nullifying our real, common enemy…and then by supplying us the new life to walk like himself and enable us to inherit Kingdom come.
The crucifixion of Jesus was a “personal” affront to God since this was His beloved Son they ran up a pole! Likewise, the resurrection of Christ was a “personal” avenging of that personal assault. God didn’t “leave it to the government” to do justice; He took matters into His own “personal” hands. To say it point blank: GOD BYPASSED “MORAL GOVERNMENT” IN ORDER TO BRING IN HIS KINGDOM WITH SUPERVENING POWER AND GLORY! Again: THE ATONEMENT EMPLOYED EXACTLY ZERO PUNISHMENT FROM GOD TO ACHIEVE ITS SAVING PURPOSE. ZERO DIVINE WRATH. ZERO DIVINE CONDEMNATION. IN SOLID FACT, THE ATONEMENT UTILIZED ZERO PENAL JUSTICE AT ALL. THEN WHEN SAVING JUSTICE DID FINALLY FALL, IT WAS 100% PREMIAL, COMING ON THE THIRD DAY AFTER THE DEADLY BLOW WAS LEVELLED, MORE THAN TOTALLY NULLIFYING IT!
By that stupefying revelation from Heaven of God’s rewarding justice, “moral governments” on earth were embarrassed, while citizens of God’s Kingdom were honored in their civil disobedience against the continuing oppression and persecution of saints.
PROVISO: The above facts do not negate the eventual avenging of Christ’s wicked execution on that adulterous generation. But that wrath against Jerusalem WAS NOT ATONING. However, the grace given to Christ at his resurrection (“the grace of the Resurrection” according to early Christian authors) WAS AND IS ATONING. Not a bad tradeoff, wouldn’t you agree?
~to be continued~
The Premial Atonement 