GOVERNMENTAL LOVE?
In contrast [to Christianity], in the pagan world, and especially among the philosophers, mercy was regarded as a character defect and pity as a pathological emotion: because mercy involves providing unearned help or relief, it is contrary to justice. As E. A. Judge explained, classical philosophers taught that “mercy indeed is not governed by reason at all,” and humans must learn “to curb the impulse”; “the cry of the undeserving for mercy” must go “unanswered.” Judge continued: “Pity was a defect of character unworthy of the wise and excusable only in those who have not yet grown up. Rodney Stark, The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World’s Largest Religion (New York: Harper Collins, and HarperOne, 2011) p. 112. Quoting from E. A. Judge, “The Quest for Mercy in Late Antiquity,” in God Who Is Rich in Mercy” Essays Presented to D. B. Knox, edited by P. T. O’Brien and D. G. Peterson, (Sydney: Macquairie University Press, 1986) pp. 107-21.
Jesse, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying it’s wrong to punish the righteous if you’re doing it for penal substitution reasons, but it’s right to punish the righteous if you’re doing it for governmental substitution reasons. Am I reading you correctly and fairly on this point? I want to get this exactly right because at present it seems to me that these both come down to the identical injustice. In effect, you thereby EXALT THE GOVERNMENT ABOVE JUSTICE. YOU HONOR THE INSTRUMENT MORE THAN THE CRITERION.
Penal substitution errs by magnifying penal justice to the complete eclipsing of premial justice. Governmental substitution errs by magnifying the administration of justice (basically penal, of course) above justice itself. You may pick your poison if you are so inclined. I prefer to escape the lethal dilemma entirely.
This approach places government beyond criticism, beyond judgment! This is a perfect formula to justify arbitrary oppression by human regimes. God’s authentic Kingdom does the opposite. It forces governments to buckle under to justice, under threat of downfall. Jesus didn’t submit to Roman oppression in order to honor Roman law but to bring the Roman empire to its knees…in humble worship. Christ’s cross brought Roman law into submission to God’s mission, which is to rule the whole world with real justice.
And what of Moses’ Law? “If, indeed, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for the people have been placed under Law with it), what need is there still for a different Priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not said to be according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood, being transferred, of necessity there is coming to be a transference of Law also…and it is still more abundantly sure, if a different Priest is rising according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has not come to be according to the Law of a fleshly precept [i.e., the ancient decrepit penal regimes], but according to the power of an indissoluble LIFE!” (Hebrews 7:11-12, 15-16)
Neither ancient government could rule any longer with impunity now that the Son of God had been installed via resurrection from a death to which he had been highhandedly and ignominiously consigned by treacherous—treasonous in fact—“moral [read: immoral] government” that had dared to plot and execute the murder of the King of kings and Lord of lords, presuming to act with political/governmental immunity. Now that Christ has assumed the throne of the universe, with all authority in Heaven and on earth, he has continued to bring down throne after autocratic throne that practices oppression.
Any questions?
The great “must” of the Gospel is no musterion (μυστηριον), i.e., “mystery.” It is the oath-promise sworn by God to His own Son that he would be a Priest for the age according to the order of Melchizedek. So in effect the New Covenant entailed by this divine oath would, under the ”right” circumstances, DEMAND A RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD. Hebrews 6:9 through 8:13 unfolds this ROUSING CENTERPIECE of the New Covenant—of the Gospel—which would with power displace the Old Covenant—priesthood, Law, and all—both ceremony and “morality.” For the New Covenant is simply better in every way!
There is no so-called “governmental” necessity that can trump this supreme imperial imperative that achieved ATONEMENT.
Jesse, it is exceedingly important, although it may be exceedingly difficult, to entertain the possibility that, in view of the alternative exegesis and argumentation I have presented so far, the entire history of accounting for the Atonement that is based on penal justice is not merely incorrect “partly” but fundamentally and irremediably.
Neither Anselm nor Aquinas,
neither Luther nor Melanchthon,
neither Calvin nor Grotius,
neither Owen nor Wesley,
neither Edwards, Sr. nor Edwards, Jr.,
neither Finney nor Burge,
neither Miley nor Barnes,
neither Jenkyn nor Booth,
neither Park nor Foster,
neither Pratney nor Olson,
neither Beman nor Otis,
appear to have escaped the tenacious thrall of Augustine’s perversely pervasive penal predisposition.
What kind of sophistry is it that can correctly and ardently, even passionately, if not indignantly insist that it is always wrong to inflict punishment on the innocent, and then perform an awkward mental about-face to rationalize an exception in just this one case of Jesus Christ, on account of he’s “substituting” his wrongful penalty in place of our rightful punishment? Oh. So God can do wrong against Christ and still not be guilty of wrongdoing so long as it’s for a “higher purpose”—that of respect for government. Did I get that right? Is the moral government theory implying that God’s will is that we honor an allegedly “moral government” and its rights more than we honor the rights of His own Son to get what he justly deserves and not to suffer punishments that he does not deserve? Isn’t it actually asking, nay teaching, nay proclaiming that unjust sinners who “drink wickedness like water” should believe that God is just like them? That would be an “immoral influence theory” without equal! And that “draws” sinners to God? GET A LIFE! GET A GRIP! GRIP THE RESURRECTION IN ITS FULL NEW COVENANT SIGNIFICANCE, AND “RECTORAL” SOPHISTRY WILL BECOME VISIBLE FOR WHAT IT REALLY IS: A COUNTERFEIT. A TAWDRY SUBSTITUTE FOR THE GOSPEL OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. A PHONY, A FICTION, A FANTASY, A PHANTOM.
Them’s hard words, I know. But I would urge folks to get back on track, my dear brother. I believe your evangelizing will undergo a revolution when you weigh in on the atoning meaning of the Resurrection.
When the risen Jesus sat down on his throne at the right hand of God, THAT ATONED FOR EVERYTHING. So the “Apostles’ Creed” really says it all: “…died and was buried. On the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended to the right hand of God…” It was precisely this grand exhibit of God’s overruling and exalting justice that atones for the sin[-offering] of crucifying the Lord Jesus Christ.
~to be continued~
The Premial Atonement 