Will it be Just for God to Take our Place Instead of us Being Punished for our Sins?

By: Omar Rushlive L. Arellano

I decided to write about this because I believe in the significance of the atonement. Though my friend who asked this question which I will quote (posted with his permission) and translate below is not a progressive, there are progressives who undermine our belief in substitutionary atonement. There’s this interview of William Lane Craig by Alisa Childers last year, where she mentioned that “one of the questions that gets brought up also is how God is justified in punishing an innocent person if He is just”?¹ This, it seems to me, is one of the reasons that it’s hard for modern people to understand the atonement, and it is my hope that we could give some clarity about it in this essay. I also want to say that the reason I wrote this essay as well is to make sure that I do justice to my friend’s question, which I could not give in a few comments.

What I will do is to first share the quote of the question of my friend, second, I’ll give a brief explanation of why the atonement is significant, third, I will attempt to answer his question about the atonement.

The Question

“Bro. Nakita ko post mo about substitution. Na it works dahil jesus never sinned. Doesn’t that mean na we should also implement that sa justice system natin? Na kung murderer ang kaibigan ko and I never broke any law, pwede kong saluhin yung punishment niya? Would that be just? If not, bakit different kay God? Why won’t it be right to choose hell and take the punishment yourself?”

Translation: “Brother! I saw your post about substitution, that it works because Jesus never sinned. Doesn’t that mean that we should also implement that in our justice system? Like if my friend is a murderer and that I never broke any law, that I could take the punishment he deserves? Would that be just? If not, why is it different from God? Why won’t it be right to choose hell and take the punishment yourself?”

The Significance of the Atonement

In Alisa Childer’s interview with William Lane Craig, Dr. Craig compared the doctrine of atonement to a jewel because of it being multifaceted. The reason for this is to show that it will be wrong to reduce the doctrine to one motif. Dr. Craig mentions examples of different motifs such as penal substitution, ransom, redemption, and satisfaction of divine justice. Yet, we see Dr. Craig mentions that gemologists who cut gems call a certain part of the gem “the table”, which anchors all its facets. This table of the gem is paralleled to be the penal substitution of the atonement, which is said to be the central facet that anchors all the others.² We concur with this exalted view of the penal substitutionary atonement. As Dr. Thomas Schreiner said, “Penal substitution captures the heart of the atonement, for we see in the atoning sacrifice of Christ both the love and justice of God.”³ And also Dr. J.I. Packer, “…I am one of those who believe that this notion takes us to the very heart of the Christian gospel…”⁴ Indeed, the gospel is one of the beliefs which distinguishes Christians among those who have a different worldview, and what I’ll do to show the significance of substitutionary atonement is to show how it helps us make sense of the gospel that we preach. We will first define the gospel, second, we will define atonement, then we will show how the substitutionary view of the atonement helps us make sense of the gospel.

What is the gospel? The gospel means good news. We could think of it as good news because of the bad news, which is that all of us have rebelled against God and that we have violated God’s laws, thus we deserve punishment. The good news is that those who trust in Christ will not be punished, because He took that punishment upon Himself by dying on the cross for the sins of the world. A good summary I could think of is from 9Marks⁵:

“1. God. God is the creator of all things (Gen. 1:1). He is perfectly holy, worthy of all worship, and will punish sin (1 John 1:5, Rev. 4:11, Rom. 2:5–8).

2. Man. All people, though created good, have become sinful by nature (Gen. 1:26–28, Ps. 51:5, Rom. 3:23). From birth, all people are alienated from God, hostile to God, and subject to the wrath of God (Eph. 2:1–3).

3. Christ. Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man, lived a sinless life, died on the cross to bear God’s wrath in the place of all who would believe in him, and rose from the grave in order to give his people eternal life (John 1:1, 1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:26, Rom. 3:21–26, 2 Cor. 5:21, 1 Cor. 15:20–22).

4. Response. God calls everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and trust in Christ in order to be saved (Mark 1:15, Acts 20:21, Rom. 10:9–10).”

What is atonement? Dr. Craig, in his interview, mentions that the word atonement has two meanings. One is the etymological meaning, which is the meaning it has by virtue of its derivation, which is the Middle English phrase, “at one ment” that indicates a state of harmony. Dr. Craig comments that the biblical word for this is reconciliation. So this is one meaning of atonement, but it is not the same in Hebrew and Greek. Dr. Craig then explains the second sense by giving the Hebrew word kippur which is the word translated “to atone”. Here he mentions the festival Yom Kippur or the Day of Atonement, to show that the meaning of atonement in the Hebrew sense is to cleanse or purify from sin. This sense of cleansing or purification from sin is said to be the means through which our reconciliation is achieved.⁶

In light of these two definitions, we can say that penal substitution helps us make sense of the gospel because it shows us the reason why Jesus needs to die in our place. Dr. Schreiner in his essay entitled, “Substitutionary Atonement”, argues that human beings need a substitute because we “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). And this sin is said to separate human beings from God. Aside from us being separated from God, Dr. Schreiner mentions that sin is rebellion against God Himself, and it’s a failure to glorify God and to give thanks to Him, and also that it’s a flagrant refusal to submit to God’s lordship. Because all of us do not follow God’s law, no one is exempted from God’s curse. It’s clear that in light of this, we are all in trouble because God’s holiness requires perfection in obedience, and not one of us meets the cut.

In the Old Testament, Dr. Schreiner talked about animal sacrifices. People there lay their hands on the animal to signify that the animal will serve as a substitute for the person and that their sin will be transferred to the animal. The death of the animal is said to signify the penalty that human beings deserve for their sins. Dr. Schreiner reasons that this death of the animal serves as a substitute for the worshipper, which is evident on the Day of Atonement, which is a great day once a year when the sins of Israel are atoned for. Dr. Schreiner then cites Leviticus 17:11 to show that atonement is secured through the shedding of blood. Forgiveness comes through the violent death of the animal which takes the penalty that people in Israel deserve. Dr. Schreiner continues that this animal sacrifice does not and cannot fully atone for sin. He argues:

“Animal sacrifices do not and cannot finally atone for sin (Heb. 9:1–10:18), and such sacrifices point to the atoning death of Jesus Christ which secures complete and permanent forgiveness of sins. We see in Isaiah 53 that Jesus as the servant of the Lord suffered death in the place of sinners. “He himself bore our sicknesses, and he carried our pains” (Isa. 53:4). As the next verse says, “he was pierced because of our rebellion, crushed because of our iniquities; punishment for our peace was on him, and we are healed by his wounds” (Isa. 53:5). He died as a “guilt offering” in the place of sinners (53:10). In his death, “he bore the sin of many” (53:12). The Lord “was pleased to crush him” (53:10), and Jesus Christ as the Servant of the Lord suffered the wrath of God sinners deserved.”⁷

This is consistent with the message of the followers of Christ in the New Testament. Dr. Schreiner argues that Romans 3:21–26 is a central text in penal substitution. He mentions that in Romans 1:18–3:20 that all of us without exception are sinners that deserve God’s wrath, and that Romans 3:21–22 shows that we cannot have a right relationship with God through the observance of the law, because we all sin. The answer to the question of how could God forgive sinners so that they have a right relationship with God is said to be given in Romans 3:25–26, which is faith in Jesus Christ. As it is written, ““God presented him as an atoning sacrifice in his blood, received through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his restraint God passed over the sins previously committed. God presented him to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so that he would be righteous and declare righteous the one who has faith in Jesus.” Thus, Dr. Schreiner comments, “The words translated “atoning sacrifice” has a more technical meaning and can be rendered as “propitiation” or “mercy seat” (hilastērion). The word propitiation signifies that God’s wrath has been satisfied or appeased in the cross of Christ.”⁸

In light of this, I would say that substitutionary atonement is significant because, without it, we cannot do justice with the Bible’s affirmation of God’s holiness and righteousness, our sinfulness and need for forgiveness and reconciliation with God, and also the reason Jesus needs to come to the world to die. Substitutionary atonement gives us an account in making sense of these doctrines.

The Justice and Love of God in Substitutionary Atonement

Now that we are able to show the significance of substitutionary atonement, let’s go back to my friend’s question so that we could answer it. What we will do first is to quote the translation in its entirety, second, we will then answer the question and the assumptions implicit in it.

The Question:

“Brother! I saw your post about substitution, that it works because Jesus never sinned. Doesn’t that mean that we should also implement that in our justice system? Like if my friend is a murderer and that I never broke any law, that I could take the punishment he deserves? Would that be just? If not, why is it different from God? Why won’t it be right to choose hell and take the punishment yourself?”

In context, the post he is referring to is a throwback of a quote from a student in UP Diliman. The student was able to finish our 4H Apologetics Mentorship program and the doubt he wanted to research is: Morality is not objective, because the standards of societies are evolving. The culmination of that program is where the student will present the doubt they researched. In the presentation, after he was able to prove that morality is objective, he used it as a springboard to show God’s holiness which points also to Christ’s holiness and also the gospel of Jesus Christ. The student said, which I translate, “The reason that substitution is possible is that Jesus did not commit any sin.” And this is reasonable for us to think this because if Jesus sinned, then He could not be our substitute. All sinners, which includes him, for the sake of argument, will be justly punished.

Based on this reality, the next part of my friend’s question is that perhaps we need to also implement in our justice system the notion of punishing someone innocent in order to make the guilty scot-free. The example he gave is if he has a friend who is a murderer, and that he could take the punishment that his friend deserves because he has not broken any law. The next question then asks if that kind of system would be just, which echoes the progressive complaint in the atonement that God’s punishment of an innocent person (Jesus) undermines His justice. This is the basis of the question that became the title of our essay: “Will it be Just for God to Take our Place Instead of us Being Punished for our Sins?” My position, obviously, is that God is just in letting Jesus become a substitute for our sins. We can say that God is justified in punishing an innocent person (Jesus) for our sins. To answer this, I relied heavily on Dr. William Lane Craig’s, “The Atonement” from Cambridge Elements: Philosophy of Religion.⁹

Related to my friend’s appeal to apply in our justice system the notion of punishing someone innocent for the sake of someone who did wrong, is related to the objection that we know nothing in our experience of “punishing a blameless third party for the wrongdoing of someone else”, and yet, Dr. Craig discovers that such an objection is demonstrably false since it is present on both civil and criminal law in the Anglo-American justice system.¹⁰ Dr. Craig mentions that it’s widely accepted and commonly practiced under the title of vicarious liability. In his book, “The Atonement”, in the part where it discusses the philosophical objections to the atonement, Dr. Craig gives some examples. The examples he gave are Allen v. Whitehead (1930) and Sherras v. De Rutzen (1985). In the former, the owner of the cafe was found guilty because of his employee. The management of the cafe allowed prostitutes to gather there which is a violation of the law. In the latter, a bartender sold alcohol to a constable on duty which is a situation that imputed the criminal liability to the owner. The examples given, according to Dr. Craig shows that the guilt of the person who did wrong is imputed to the owner, and though the owner is guilty, he is not regarded as worthy of blame, and thus he is regarded as guilty and liable to punishment though he is not culpable.¹¹ This doctrine is also applicable in the Philippines. In an article of Respicio & Co about medical malpractice in the Philippines, there’s a question there about whether we could hold the clinic or the hospital liable. The answer is that the clinic is liable under vicarious liability of an employer under art. 2180 of the Civil Code (respondeat superior).¹² Thus, we can reason, the same as Dr. Craig, that the vicarious liability that exists in law is sufficient to show that the imputation of our guilt to Christ has a parallel in our human experience.

For this reason, if this is seen as just by human standards, then we can say that God’s punishment of Christ for our sins could be said to be just. Also, since there is such a thing as a vicarious liability in both the civil and criminal law in the Anglo-American justice system, then to answer my friend’s question directly, it’s already implemented in our justice system. This does not necessarily mean that my friend should die, for the sake of argument, for the murder committed by his friend (no real murder happened). For in the Philippine context, the punishment for murder is reclusion temporal, which is “The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve years and one day to twenty years.”¹³ As it’s said in The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines:

“Article 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death…”¹⁴

For this reason, we can say that in the same way that we view vicarious liability to be just, then we can say that the notion of punishing someone innocent (Jesus) could be said to be just. But there are those who will insist that perhaps it’s unjust, in the same way, that someone else will be killed for the murder committed by another, which begs the question, “What makes God different?” I believe this is where Dr. Craig’s discussion on the metaethical contextualization helpful in answering the question.

In that section of the book, Dr. Craig proposes a Divine Command Theory of ethics, which affirm that moral duties are constituted by God’s commands. Since there is no external law outside of God from which He needs to conform to, then God has no moral duties to fulfill like we do. He can act in any way consistent with His nature. After all, the Good or the moral law is God’s nature, which means that it is not something outside of God. The implication of this is that God has unique prerogatives. One example that Dr. Craig gave is that He could give and take human life as He wills. Also, Dr. Craig mentions that though God may usually act in accordance with duty, since God does not act from duty, God is free to make exceptions. The example he gave to show this is the story of God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice His son Isaac.¹⁵ Furthermore, in Dr. Craig’s discussion with Dr. Scott Rae, because of God having unique prerogatives, when God forbids human beings in punishing the innocent, from which Dr. Craig gave examples such as Moses offering himself as a substitutionary sacrifice and also the sacrifice of Isaac, we can say that God’s unique prerogatives make Him able to reserve for Himself the right to punish an innocent divine person for the sins of others.¹⁶ For this reason, God is free to take on human nature in the form of Jesus Christ, so that He could give His life as a sacrificial offering for our sin and no one could find fault with Him for doing it. This is done consistently with God’s nature. Thus as Dr. Craig says, “And what could be more consistent with our God’s gracious nature than that He should condescend to take on our frail and fallen humanity and give His life to satisfy the demands of His own justice? The self-giving sacrifice of Christ exalts the nature of God by displaying His holy love.”¹⁷

Furthermore, Dr. Craig says, “And in cases of vicarious liability, the liability can be imputed to the employer and he can satisfy the demands of justice for both himself and for his employee. This is especially clear in cases where the employer is a corporation, a legal person in the eyes of the law where say there’s an oil spill that’s going to cost $13 billion to rectify. It’s impossible for the employee to pay the fine, but the employer, the corporation, can be held vicariously liable and can satisfy divine justice. Or not divine judgments, but satisfy justice for both of them.

And so in light of this, similarly Christ can be held liable for our sins and his punishment can therefore atone for our sins.”¹⁸

Based on this comment of Dr. Craig on the fine that it is impossible for the employee to pay the fine, it reminds me of a beautiful explanation of our plight in the gospel, which we could see in The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant in Matthew 18:21–35. In verses 23–24 it’s said, “”Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.” In Dr. Michael Wilkin’s commentary on the book of Matthew in the ESV Study Bible, he mentions that in the Old Testament, a talent is a unit of weight which is equal to 34 kilograms. In the New Testament, it became a unit of monetary reckoning which is equal to 20 years wages for a laborer. The computation of one talent is equal to $600,000 (USD). This shows that the passage hyperbolically represents a debt that we could never pay, which is $6 billion (USD). This debt that we could never pay is paid for by Christ in His death for us on the cross. It’s paid at Christ’s expense. And He is the only one who could pay this incalculable debt.

Now, my friend asked, “Why won’t it be right to choose hell and take the punishment yourself?” C.S. Lewis in The Great Divorce says, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it.”¹⁹ It’s clear that people are in Hell because they chose it. People decided to be their own gods and follow their own path, and because of that, we deserve God’s punishment. Also, it could be said that it would be right to say that God’s righteousness will not be undermined if God decided not to save anyone because all of us are sinners.

I remember a discussion of Dr. R.C. Sproul on The Holiness of God. He talked about his students who failed to turn in their term papers. Basically the gist of his narrative is that his students were asking for his mercy to not give them an F and they gave him various reasons such as being busy with other things. Dr. Sproul gave three dates there where he gave them chances to extend the deadline of their term papers. Basically the effect of this leniency is that his students took him for granted. Instead of passing their term papers, they conditioned themselves into thinking that he will tolerate them and not give them a failing grade even if they have not passed their term papers. But his students were dead wrong. On November 30, his students who did not have their term paper were given a failing grade for not being able to turn their term paper in. A student in the back shouted that what Dr. Sproul did was not fair. This student did not turn his paper in on time last time, so what Dr. Sproul did was that he gave the student a failing grade for both of the term papers that he submitted late. Dr. Sproul then asked the class if anybody else wanted justice.²⁰

The point of this illustration is that God never owes us His grace and mercy. God is not obligated to give it to us. We are not in a position to demand God of His mercy and grace, for demanding it from God no longer makes it grace and mercy. This should make us appreciate more God’s provision for us in Christ. For Christ’s atonement is based on God’s love for us. As it’s said in Romans 5:8, “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Also in John 3:16, ““For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” This love of God is defined by Wayne Grudem as “God eternally gives of himself to others.”²¹ And to say that God loves sinners like us is a thought too great that maybe words can run the risk of not doing it any justice. And yet, this love is not contrary but consistent with God’s justice as we have seen in this essay.

As I end, I just want to highlight further the love of God by quoting a blog that took Chapter 11 of Nabeel Qureshi’s book, “No God but One: Allah or Jesus? A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam & Christianity”:

“Sahar’s question to me that summer afternoon in Oakland intuitively captured a sentiment that I think many Christians can learn from: God is King of the universe, unimaginably holy, and it is far beneath his majesty for him to be born on this filthy earth. So I affirmed her question, but then asked her one in turn. “Sahar, let’s imagine that you are on your way to a very important ceremony and are dressed in your finest clothes. You are about to arrive just on time, but then you see your daughter drowning in a pool of mud. What would you do? Let her drown and arrive looking dignified, or rescue her but arrive at the ceremony covered in mud?”

Her response was very matter of fact, “Of course, I would jump in the mud and save her.”

Nuancing the question more, I asked her, “Let’s say there were others with you. Would you send someone else to save her, or would you save her yourself?”

Considering this, Sahar responded, “If she is my daughter, how could I send anyone else? They would not care for her like I do. I would go myself, definitely.”

I paused for a short moment before continuing, “If you, being a human, love your daughter so much that you are willing to lay aside your dignity to save her, how much more can we expect God, if he is our perfectly loving Father, to lay aside his majesty to save us?””²²

In summary, I discussed first the significance of substitutionary atonement, second, we answered the question of my friend by showing that there’s a human analogy where we can see that it is just to punish someone innocent for the sins of another. This shows that the concept is already implemented in our justice system. This also shows that it’s just for God to take our place instead of us being punished for our sins. We also showed how God is different from human beings in having a prerogative in punishing an innocent divine person for the sins of another, which human beings are not able to do. We also showed why God does not owe us grace and mercy, so that we would appreciate God’s provision for us which is a manifestation of God’s glorious love for us.

In conclusion, God’s justice is not undermined by taking the punishment that we deserve. It’s not done because God owes it to us, but it’s done out of the abundance of God’s love.

References:

1. Craig, William. “The Atonement | Progressives & William Lane Craig with Alisa Childers,” September 5, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-zqN8gh9oE
2. Craig, William. “The Atonement | Progressives & William Lane Craig with Alisa Childers,” September 5, 2020. 5:25, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-zqN8gh9oE
3. Schreiner, Thomas. “Substitutionary Atonement.” TGC. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/substitutionary-atonement/.
4. Packer, J.I. “What Did the Cross Achieve?: The Logic of Penal Substitution.” 9Marks. https://www.9marks.org/article/what-did-the-cross-achieve-the-logic-of-penal-substitution/
5. “What is the gospel?,” 9Marks, accessed July 13, 2021, https://www.9marks.org/answer/what-gospel/.
6. Craig, William. “The Atonement | Progressives & William Lane Craig with Alisa Childers,” September 5, 2020. 3:52, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-zqN8gh9oE
7. Schreiner, Thomas. “Substitutionary Atonement.” TGC. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/substitutionary-atonement/.
8. Schreiner, Thomas. “Substitutionary Atonement.” TGC. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/substitutionary-atonement/.
9. Craig, William. The Atonement. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2018
10. Craig, William. “The Atonement | Progressives & William Lane Craig with Alisa Childers,” September 5, 2020. 23:09, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-zqN8gh9oE
11. Craig, William. The Atonement. (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 66.
12. “Medical Malpractice in the Philippines,” Respicio & Co., accessed July 16, 2021, https://www.respicio.ph/features/medical-malpractice2.
13. “The Revised Penal Codes Act №3815,” National Water Resources Board, accessed July 13, 2021, http://www.nwrb.gov.ph/index.php/about/gender-development/laws-on-women/587-the-revised-penal-codes.
14. “AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER PENAL LAWS,” The LAWPHiL Project, accessed July 13, 2021, https://lawphil.net/statutes/acts/act_3815_1930.html.
15. Craig, William. The Atonement. (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 69–70.
16. Rae, Scott. “The Atonement with William Lane Craig.” Think Biblically. Podcast transcript, April 18, 2019. https://www.biola.edu/blogs/think-biblically/2019/the-atonement
17. Craig, William. The Atonement. (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 70.
18. Rae, Scott. “The Atonement with William Lane Craig.” Think Biblically. Podcast transcript, April 18, 2019. https://www.biola.edu/blogs/think-biblically/2019/the-atonement
19. Lewis, C.S. The C.S. Lewis Signature Classics. (Broadway, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2017), 506.
20. Sproul, R.C. “The Holiness of God.” Ligonier Ministries. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/holiness_of_god/holiness-and-justice/
21. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994.
22. Qureshi, Nabeel. “Who Was Ruling the Universe When Jesus Died.” Olive Tree Blog. https://www.olivetree.com/blog/ruling-universe-jesus-died/