Let’s go back to what Dr. King was saying, as quoted in 11/25/09 blog post. From Google Books and page 189 of The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr, Volumes 2-3:
Concerning the work of Christ the two reformers stressed a substitutionary theory of atonement. They maintained that Christ actually took the place of sinners in the sight of God, and as a substitutee suffered the punishment that was due to men. But all of this is based on a false view of personality. Merit and guilt are not transferable from one person to another. They are inalienable from personality. Moreover, on moral grounds, a person cannot be punished in the place of another.
Actually, two things that are false are (a) the denial of the fact that guilt is transferable from one person to another; and (b) the denial of the fact that a person can on moral grounds be punished in the place of another.
Whose law or whose moral rules have you broken when you do something that is wrong? Answer: you have broken God’s law. Since it is God who is the offended party in this case, does he not have the right to forgive and to excuse the offenders as he will? Answer: of course he does. And suppose that I were to stand up for someone else--in practically any case of a rule’s having been broken--and say “Punish me instead of him. I’ll take the rap instead of him.” Regardless of whether the person who actually did the crime could or should be excused, am I not worthy of punishment if I willingly offer to be punished in someone’s stead? It seems to me that I am in fact worthy of punishment if that is what I insist on having. (Notice, meanwhile, that this idea certainly is not far-gone if the scribes and Pharisees of Matthew 23.29-36 and Luke 11.45-51 are worthy of punishment in virtue of their claiming to be descendants of those who persecuted the prophets of old.) Therefore, if I offer to be punished instead then I am worthy of punishment.
Moreover, if I am worthy of punishment for a particular wrongdoing, then I also bear guilt of this particular act. Of course, the words “guilt” or “guilty” in this case would clearly carry a different meaning than it carries in the English colloquial phrase “guilty of sb,” which in turn means he did the crime, and in the phrase “feelings of guilt,” which simply speaks of feelings of culpability. So if I bring worthiness of punishment upon myself by my intercession for someone who actually did the crime, then I have brought guilt upon myself. For what else is guilt, according to the sense of the term that Dr. King uses above? Therefore, if guilt is not transferable from one person to another, we have seen at least that guilt of one person’s act of wrongdoing can become a property or quality held by another person.
Yet the guilt of one person’s act of wrongdoing can in fact virtually or exactly be transferred from one person to another. Whose law or whose moral rules have you broken when you do something that is wrong? Answer: you have broken God’s law. Since it is God who is the offended party in this case, does he not have the right to forgive and to excuse the offenders as he will? Answer: yes. Now suppose that I were to stand up for someone else, saying, “Punish me instead of him. I’ll take the rap instead of him.” If the divine punishment that I now bring upon myself were sufficient to demonstrate the degree to which God takes evil acts seriously or were sufficient to appease God’s wrath or anger, then what would be the point in punishing a second person? With that said, it is entirely conceivable that the punishment of one particular person could be effective such that punishment of a second party becomes unnecessary. And guess what: that is more or less what the Bible teaches us. For it informs us in no uncertain terms that the punishment of the transgressors was upon Christ (Isaiah 53) and that sinners who will believe in Christ are forgiven and excused such that their guilt becomes no more. Therefore, the guilt of one party ceases to exist while apparently one party freely brings guilt upon himself and is punished in order to spare the first party (Matthew 20.28; John 10.11-18).
Then again, perhaps Dr. King would object to all of this, saying, “Oh no, this won’t do at all. The person who actually sinned: he should be the one to be punished for the crime. All the people who have done me wrong in life: why should they be let off the hook while someone who did not commit their evil actions is punished for what they did?” The objection is that those who actually commit wrongdoings should be punished, not necessarily those who bear guilt of those actions. However, if one will stop to think about it then it becomes clear that not all those who have done wrong necessarily deserve to be punished. After all, even after God has forgiven any sinner for what that sinner has done the fact remains that this sinner has done wrong at some particular time in the past, an example being that Peter’s denial of Christ is a matter of public record. Peter and the other apostles of Christ did wrong, yet they do not deserve punishment, given that their sins were forgiven. Therefore, not all of those who have done wrong necessarily deserve to be punished. Therefore, we can say this of the individuals who personally sinned against Dr. King: what they sinned against was God’s property (Ps 24.1, Rom 9, Rom 11.36) and God will avenge himself as he will (Romans 12.19-20).
No comments:
Post a Comment