|
COULD JESUS HAVE
SKIPPED CALVARY? #4
ARE YOU GLAD FOR A SUBSTITUTE?
It didn't happen this way, but if it had, you certainly
would have heard about it. When that jury in Jasper, Texas, came back
with its guilty verdict in the dragging-behind-a-pickup murder of James
Byrd, Jr., it was an almost perfunctory afterthought when they deliberated
and gave him a death sentence. Death by lethal injection.
But now imagine if, just as the bailiff is about to lead John William
King out of the courtroom in handcuffs and leg irons and escort him to
Death Row, there is suddenly a commotion in the grandstands. And a Christian
— let's say it's Billy Graham or Bill Hybels, the dynamic pastor at Willow
Creek Community Church — suddenly cries out: "Your Honor! Your Honor!"
And he volunteers to take the place of Mr. King, die in his stead.
Question number one: Is that allowed? And the answer's obvious: no, it
isn't. A punishment has to be borne by the person who commits the crime.
We have the old Roman law: Lex talionis — "an eye for an eye."
And of course, it's the offender's eye that has got to come out, not some
innocent bystander's.
Second question: Is it even a good IDEA for someone to be able to bear
another's punishment? I don't know Pastor Bill Hybels, but everything
I've read of his is very, very good. Thousands of believers are growing
as disciples, learning to "descend into greatness" by entering
into Christian service as he leads there at Willow Creek. And of course,
the concept he teaches of "becoming a contagious Christian"
is something we fully espouse here at The Voice of Prophecy. What a terrible
idea for Bill Hybels, wonderful Christian leader, to die in the place
of this unrepentant racist killer, John William King. It would appear
that here in our world, the concept of SUBSTITUTION is simply a failed
idea, both legally and morally. It's absolutely stupid. If you kept it
up long enough, the jails would be filled with saints, and the streets
with sinners.
And yet, friend, as we gaze at the Cross of Calvary, the doctrine of substitution
is exactly what we seem to find. Jesus, who is perfect and good and holy
and loving, dying in the place of people who are rotten and rebellious
and rascally and wretched.
And on the face of it, that seems like an immoral proposition. As well
as being stupid. We mentioned in a series on the parables of Jesus that
many of these stories are full of bad math, dumb logic. But here at the
foot of the Cross, we really find some stupid trading going on.
Just read through Isaiah chapter 53, where this principle of substitution
is most clearly explained. "Surely HE hath borne OUR griefs."
That's a foolish idea, a dumb thing for God to offer to do. "And
carried OUR sorrows." "HE was wounded for OUR transgressions."
Humanly speaking, that's stupid. "He was bruised for OUR iniquities."
Stupid. "The chastisement of our peace was upon HIM." Stupid.
"And with HIS stripes WE are healed." Which is really, really
dumb — humanly speaking.
Down in verse six the whole substitution model really finds its climactic
statement.
"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to
his own way." Now notice this, and think of Bill Hybels subbing in,
not just for Mr. King, but for all the killers and kidnappers and rapists
and terrorists and mad bombers and sociopaths of all human history. "And
the Lord hath laid on HIM [Jesus] the iniquity of us ALL."
Well, friend, there we have it. Not just a good man
dying for a bad one — which is a terrible idea — but the best Man, the
only perfect Man, the God-Man dying for ALL of the bad people.
But despite these plain words in Isaiah, and the equally plain words of
Jesus Himself about going to Calvary to bear our sins, there are many
today who absolutely cannot accept the concept, the model, of the substitutionary
sacrifice of Jesus Christ. William Newton Clarke writes this:
"Punishment is absolutely untransferable,
and no one can possibly be punished for the sin of another. . . . From
its very nature, punishment can fall upon the sinner alone."
The Bible itself, in other passages, seems to back
this up. Here's Ezekiel 18:20:
"The soul that sinneth, IT shall die. The
son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father
bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall
be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon HIM."
And in Judge Judy's courtroom, this is absolutely true.
Here in our world and on TV shows like Law and Order and L.A. Practice,
we're all very concerned about lex talionis; we want the bad guy behind
bars. Of course, that ceases to be true when WE or someone we love is
the bad guy. Then, all at once, the concept of substitution doesn't seem
so bad, does it?
However, Christians who ponder the mystery of the Cross have to also consider
this larger question: Why would the God of the universe demand that this
happen? In his essay, "The Perfect Penitent," the very devout
C. S. Lewis calls the idea of Jesus bearing our punishment a "silly
theory." "If God wants to let us off," he writes, "why
doesn't He just do it?" In other words, He makes the rules. He's
the boss. He sets the crime to fit the punishment. If He's eager to forgive
humanity, why would He demand the death of ANYBODY, and then allow His
own Son to fill in for us? Theologian Peter Abelard wonders aloud about
this:
"How cruel and wicked it seems," he
writes, "that anyone should demand the blood of an innocent person
as the price for anything, or that it should in any way PLEASE him that
an innocent man should be slain — still less that God should consider
the death of His Son so agreeable that by it He should be reconciled to
the whole world!"
Well, friend, I said before — and it bears repeating
again — we don't know very much. Calvary is a great mystery, but it's
also a wonderful mystery because I happen to be one of its most grateful
beneficiaries. Really, all we can do in discussing a question is to notice
the things that we know are true.
First of all, as we think of "models" — the courtroom model,
the substitution model, the "(quote) moral influence theory,"
the ransom model — we have to reject immediately and forever the concept
that God is anything but love. His love is everlasting and eternal and
holy and good. His wrath, when He experiences something which the Bible
gives that name, is also noble and holy and protecting. It's not petty
and petulant; instead, it focuses on that which destroys the creation
He loves. It is a DEFENDING wrath.
Second point: we must immediately and forever reject any teaching or model
which suggests that God the Father and God the Son are in any way different
or differING in their attitudes. Did a reluctant Jesus come here to die
because an angry Father demanded it? You see, we have to reject that possibility
because Jesus Himself clearly stated that His will and the Father's will
were the same. "I and the Father are one," He told His disciples.
"The Father Himself loves you," He told sinners. John 3:16 tells
us that it was God who SENT His son; Jesus is a gift to us FROM God. And
I know you remember that classic line penned in 1901 by Cleland B. McAfee:
"O Jesus, blest Redeemer, SENT FROM THE HEART OF GOD."
Sometimes believers trip over the verse in First John 2 which describes
Jesus as a kind of defense attorney. Here's the King James Version:
"If any man sin, we have an advocate with
the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."
And that makes it sound like a pleading Jesus is begging
a reluctant, black-robed God to forgive us based on Calvary. "Oh
please oh please oh please." And a disgruntled Judge, God the Father,
finally relents . . . probably against His better judgment. "Oh,
ALL RIGHT, Son. If You insist." But friend, please notice that the
Bible assures us that God the Father and God the Son NEVER once, EVER,
disagree in thought or purpose. Jesus tells us, through His servant Peter,
that God Himself is unwilling for anyone to perish. God the Father, God
the Judge, wants each of us to be saved; and so He and His Son TOGETHER
provide this sacrifice. Whenever I read I John 2:1, I prefer to emphasize
it this way:
"We have an advocate WITH the Father, Christ
Jesus the righteous."
you see, Jesus is God's gift to us, the substitute for our sins given
from the Father's own heart. Which again, from a judicial point of view,
seems like the dumbest thing in the world, "the most foolish trade,"
as my friend Morris Venden puts it. But it doesn't seem so stupid when
I realize that this sacrifice can count for me.
Two quick points as we close. C. S. Lewis, who is very humble in expressing
views on these models of Calvary, says this:
"A man can accept what Christ has done without
knowing how it works: indeed, he certainly would not know how it works
until he has accepted it."
Friend, I don't understand this great mystery. But
believe me, every single day I accept it with profound thanks. And here's
point #2 from our friend, Dr. George Knight:
"Christ and God the Father are ONE in their
determination to triumph — in love — over the experiment of sin. The death
of Jesus on the cross was a JOINT project — a statement of UNITY. Christ
came to earth to die, not as a result of God's demand, but as God's personal
gift. Octavius Winslow writes: ‘Who delivered up Jesus to die? Not Judas,
for money; not Pilate, for fear; not the Jews, for envy — but the Father,
for love!'"
|
