_02_by_shakko.jpg)
Does the logic of the gospel actually hold up? For instance, how would one respond to the objection that God is not just, because punishing one's own Son for others' sins is not a good and just act, but rather the act of a moral monster and a child abuser?
- First, one can respond by saying that this objection misunderstands the doctrine of the Trinity. The essential union of the divine nature means that God is not simply putting the weight of punishment on someone else's shoulders, but--in a very real way--taking it on his own shoulders.
- Second, if one should object that Christ's substitution for us makes no legal sense (for what judge would accept the self-sacrifice of an innocent man in place of a guilty defendant?), we must remember that Jesus is not only fully God, but fully man, and thus he is able to represent all of us. Rather than a courtroom analogy, it might make better sense to conceive of it in a battlefield analogy, as a great general giving himself up to the enemy so that his captured soldiers can go free in his place. There is no logical contradiction here.
- Third, it is important to remember the seriousness of sin in biblical teaching. It is not simply something that can be shrugged off, as one might imagine an offended king magnanimously shrugging off a small offense to his honor. Rather, sin actually cuts us from spiritual communion with God, who is the fountainhead of life itself, and so sin is something that needs to be dealt with. It cannot be ignored, lest we be left in perpetual death. Thus one cannot object that it doesn't make sense for God to make such a big deal about sin; the very nature of sin itself requires that it be addressed in the most serious manner--not because God is mean, but because he loves us and desires our salvation.