In order for humanity to be reconciled to God, it is necessary to know God. We obviously cannot be joined to someone we do not know. We need to know what his character is like, how he is disposed toward us, and how he feels concerning sin. We must further take time to study God's love memos dealing with his thoughts and attitudes or be destined as a result of our moral drift to misinterpret Him entirely.
An earlier chapter mentioned the profound alteration which took place in Adam's heart following his sin. Adam’s new desire to conceal himself from God indicated that he believed that God, also, had changed. This very concept has carried on throughout the entire race of rebellious men and women. They imagine a God of wrath filled with a desire for vindication. They wonder if perhaps the wrath of God kindled by their sin may not be, at least partially, appeased by gifts or by suffering. The tragic spectacle of men worshiping God from fear is heightened by pitiful rituals of self inflicted torment. The worldwide hope is that God will be soothed as He watches the sinner suffer. P. P. Waldenstrom in his book, Be Ye Reconciled to God, states:
Many dear children of God view this as the very essence of Christ's work. They think they never can escape the wrath of God, unless it has been poured out upon someone else in their stead. In their opinion, the chief significance of Christ is that He be a shelter to shield against God or, so to speak, a lightning rod for His wrath, in order that they may feel safe before Him.[3]
Isaiah Watts’ hymn highlights this misconception:
Rich were the drops of Jesus’ blood
That calm’d his frowning face,
That sprinkled o’er the burning throne
And turn’d the wrath to grace.Thy hands, dear Jesus, were not arm’d
With a revenging rod;
No hard commission to perform,—
The vengeance of a God.
But all was mercy, all was mild,
And wrath forsook the throne,
When Christ on the kind errand came
And brought salvation down.
As Albert Barnes rightly observes, “In such language as this, while something may be set down to mere poetry and to the overflowing emotions of gratitude to the Saviour for the part which he has performed in the work of redemption, it is undoubtedly implied, by the fair interpretation of the language, that a change has been produced in God by the work of the atonement; that in some way a Being before stem, severe, and angry has been made mild, forgiving and kind.”[4]
This serves to illustrate the tremendous need to discuss God's attitude and approach in the process of reconciliation. Christians have grasped hold of scriptures pertaining to God's wrath and, in the midst of their theorizing, missed an extremely important point. It was not God who needed to be reconciled to man, but it was man who needed to be reconciled to God. God's disposition of love toward man has never changed; it has not been diminished by the “fall” or any other subsequent event. There is, in fact, no sin which man could commit capable of severing God's love. There is nothing one can do to make God stop loving. God hates sin but not people. The love of God never needed to be restored by propitiation, because it was never lost. The atonement could not have changed God, for He tells us plainly that His character is unchanging (James 1:17).
The essential idea in the atonement is, not that God was originally stern and inexorable and that he has been made mild and merciful by the atonement, but that the atonement itself has its foundation in his willingness to pardon; not that he has been made benevolent by the atonement, but that he was originally so disposed to show mercy that he was willing to stoop to any sacrifice but that of truth and justice in order that he might show his willingness to pardon the guilty. He gave his Son to die, not that he might be bought over to love, but as the expression of love. [5]
When the Bible speaks of the wrath of God, to what does it refer? Everywhere the object of God's wrath is described as sin and unrighteousness. This is a hatred that will never be appeased or changed. Christ's death in no way affected the righteous wrath of God toward sin. How would the universe survive if God should cease to hate sin? The Bible also speaks of a “wrath to come” (Luke 3:7) Man's preparations for that day are also included in Scripture:
But, after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God. —Romans 2:5
The first time the word wrath appears here, it may be interpreted to read guilt. The second time it appears as the painful duty of a righteous God. It is the consequences levied against unrepentant sinners. We have already seen the incredible grief that sin brings to God, and the execution of judgment brings Him even less comfort. God pleads with men to change their hearts so He can withhold judgment.
Say to them, As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die; O house of Israel? —Ezekiel 33:11 (RSV)
For He does not afflict willingly, or grieve the sons of men. —Lamentations 3:33 (NASB)
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. —Isaiah 1:18-20
We can clearly see that it is not God’s desire to see judgment and if we, like Nineveh, will be willing to repent then we will find “a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and One who, relents concerning calamity” (Jonah 4:2).
On the other hand, if we staunchly refuse God's offer to “reason together,” there will eventually come a time when God is regretfully conscious that the means at His disposal to secure man's obedience have been exhausted. It is at this moment that God's grief reaches a climax, for He knows that for the highest good of all involved He must judge the unrepentant offender. There is a song on a children’s album that expresses this point beautifully, about Noah entering the ark and God's subsequent judgment of wickedness on earth:
But as the Lord was speaking, He then began to cry. He wept and wept for 40 days. He wept 40 nights. Though it had never rained before in all the earth's long years, now up the ark began to rise upon God's tears. [6]
We often hear the statement, “God is a God of love but He is also a God of justice.” What is wrong with this statement is the obvious error that it equates God's justice with all that is negative. It makes God's justice appear as the inverse of His love. God's justice, on the contrary, is a product or an attribute of His love. It is not and will never be in any way divorced from His benevolence.
It must be remembered that the primary function of law is to secure the happiness and well-being of any given society. Laws are never intended as ends in themselves, but as means
An effectual substitute for the normal execution of the penalty for lawbreaking is what King Darius labored earnestly but failed to find. God, on the other hand, was able to provide an adequate substitute and satisfy the demands of public justice. An exception would be made and a pardon granted. The biblical word for this substitution is atonement. God's solution to His "lion's den" problem was the governmental substitution of the sufferings of Christ for the punishment of sinners.
| Retributive Justice | Public Justice |
|---|---|
| Looks calculatingly at every individual's situation and exacts strictly in accordance with the deed. The style is “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” There is no mercy and no pardon shown where retributive justice is concerned. Most of the time retributive justice cannot be strictly satisfied. | Is basically concerned with the overall interests of the public. Justice is administered with the highest good of those involved as its end. Penalties are executed unless something else is done that will be equally effective in securing the public interests. Public justice regards the spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law. |
| Forgiveness: Never granted | Forgiveness: Permissible—if I done wisely |
It is crucial to our discussion of reconciliation that we do not confuse these two types of justice.. If this does occur it will thoroughly confound our understanding of the nature of forgiveness.
The assertion that Jesus paid for our sins has caused confusion within the body of Christ. It is casually accepted that our salvation hinges on a legal transfer of some sort between two members of the Trinity-Jesus and His Father. This has become the nearly unanimous answer to the question, “Who did Christ pay?” If Christ indeed paid the Father for sin then it was retributive justice that was served and not public justice. We should remember that under retributive justice no forgiveness is possible. Forgiveness, correctly defined, is the relaxation of a legitimate claim. According to this definition God could not have, as one hymn puts it, “paid the debt and forgave Me all my sin.”
Let me illustrate: If I borrow one hundred dollars on the condition that it be repaid at a later date, the lender has a legitimate claim. But when I return the money, the claim against me is not relaxed but fulfilled. No forgiveness takes place whatsoever. Taking the illustration one step further, let’s assume that after borrowing the hundred dollars, I find for some reason that I am unable to repay my debt. A good friend of mine, however, is good enough to offer one hundred dollars in my stead. Again we have the same result. The claim against me has not been relaxed but fulfilled, and similarly no forgiveness whatsoever takes place. The Bible teaching on the nature of forgiveness is seen in one of Jesus’ parables:
For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a certain king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. And when he had begun to settle them, there was brought to him one who owed him ten thousand talents. But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. The slave therefore falling down, prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will repay you everything.’ And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. —Matthew 18:23-27 (NASB)
The sole reason for the slave’s release was his lord’s compassion. Forgiveness in this parable is certainly the relaxation of a legitimate claim. No third party intervened, no bargain was made, the debtor was simply released from his debt. It is possible to receive payment on a claim, and it is permissible to forgive a claim, but you cannot do both! The Bible portrays a God who is completely desirous and willing to forgive sin without receiving any payment to satisfy a vindictive urge.
Elaborating on the subject, Dr. Nathan Beman states,
“The existence of the attribute of mercy was, like God Himself, eternal; and no new and super added motive was necessary in order to elicit this attribute in action. The atonement was operated not as a bribe, or reward, or original cause, influencing the divine feelings; nor as a moral persuasive to the exercise of compassions hitherto unfelt; but it opened a channel in which existing affections might freely flow; and, at the same time, it rendered the pardon and salvation of the sinner consistent with every principle of the divine government and every attribute of the divine nature. In one word, the atonement was not the procuring cause of mercy, but it was the mode in which mercy was to find for itself an illustrious expression in the system of the Gospel.”[7]
One school of thought states that the atonement totally satisfied retributive justice (the so called satisfaction doctrine). If this is true, then we face the prospect of a divided Trinity, the second Person of the Trinity being more loving that the first! Biblical scholar Gustaf Aulen shares Augustine's early concern over this concept.
…He seems to intend a pointed rejection of any such idea. He denies that God the Father can be in any way ‘placated’ by the Son's death; for in that case there would be a difference of some kind, even a conflict, between the Father and the Son: but that is unthinkable, for between the Father and the Son there is always the most perfect harmony.[8]
The strongest implication of this doctrine, however, ought to make us shudder. If God demands repayment for what sin was done to Him—if He requires full, vindictive satisfaction before releasing His claim—we find ourselves facing the conclusion that there is no loving moral Being in the universe! Fortunately this is not the case. The Bible explains God's purposes in the death of Christ.
Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. —Romans 3:24-26 (NASB)
Jesus’ death was a public demonstration. This type of public demonstration was the substitute God needed in order to satisfy public justice, since public justice did allow for pardon. This public demonstration of the sufferings of Christ solved God’s governmental problem by revealing the Lawgiver as just and wise in dispensing with the penalty. At the same time, it allowed Him to do what His heart really wanted to do—forgive the offender He loved.
Virtuous, unselfish love is totally foreign to our way of thinking. Robert Ringer gives his advice on how to be a truly “giving” person.
Simple reasoning tells you that you must regard the interests of others in order to obtain your objectives. Fellow human beings represent potential values to you in business or personal relationships, and the rational individual understands that to harvest those values he must be willing to fill certain needs of others. In this way, the most rationally selfish individual is also the most giving person.[9]
Lest this should be construed by some convoluted thought process to be Christian love, Ringer scrapes off all semantic frosting and blurts out,
Don’t do something for the reason that it’s the right thing to do if there’s no benefit to be derived from it.[10]
This dearth of understanding as to the nature of virtuous love is nowhere manifest as openly as in the contemporary evangelistic altar call. The modern-day evangelist may lack theological polish, but the really important ingredient for success comes in another package. He, must be able to sell. We are living in the era of the pragmatic sermon. Don't analyze its moral content, the question is: Does it work? The rookie evangelist may hone his techniques by studiously observing automobile salesmen at their best on late-night television. The next evening salvation is offered as “the deal of a lifetime.” “Ladies and gentlemen, just look at these extras! He comes to you, eagerly waiting to save you from hell and give you? heaven in return. And if that's not enough, consider the fact He brings you, peace and joy for your present enjoyment. Also for your comfort, He will heal your body, your finances, your grades—anything you need is available and at the disposal of those who will but believe.” The final pitch sounds something like this, “You can enjoy all of this at absolutely no extra cost—that's right, no extra cost. And Jesus Christ is the only One who can make your life the envy of your friends, so hurry down the aisle today while the offer lasts!”
From the very beginning, people learn that there is no cost involved in salvation. Jesus is presented to us as our servant, rather than our Lord. All that appeals to our self interests is highlighted so that our reaction to salvation becomes a purely selfish exercise. This is nothing less than a humanistic invasion into Christianity.
When all of our thoughts of salvation center on the question “How do I come out?”, is it surprising that we view God’s role in reconciliation in the same light? Contrary to warped speculation, God was never worried about receiving some personal satisfaction for the hurt that peoples sin had caused Him. God’s love is purely virtuous. It is unselfish, agape love. Out of this mysterious love flows God’s only concern, “How will they come out?”