@Christy…you know, saying “Hi Christy” sounds better than putting “at Christy.” Maybe I could put “Hi @Christy” as a compromise.
Hi@Christy,
Okay, I’ll offer a definition from here: Retributive Justice (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
“The concept of retributive justice has been used in a variety of ways, but it is best understood as that form of justice committed to the following three principles: (1) that those who commit certain kinds of wrongful acts, paradigmatically serious crimes, morally deserve to suffer a proportionate punishment; (2) that it is intrinsically morally good—good without reference to any other goods that might arise—if some legitimate punisher gives them the punishment they deserve; and (3) that it is morally impermissible intentionally to punish the innocent or to inflict disproportionately large punishments on wrongdoers. The idea of retributive justice has played a dominant role in theorizing about punishment over the past few decades, but many features of it—especially the notions of desert and proportionality, the normative status of suffering, and the ultimate justification for retribution—remain contested and problematic.”
Anyway, our justice system is based on the idea of retributive justice. And I think it should be.
But it is not all clear to me that God is obligated to fulfill retributive justice. It seems that he has the option to forgive someone’s wrongdoing - not hold it against them - if he so desires. Further, there is the problem of how guilt is transferred from us to Jesus. We committed sin, not Jesus. Retributive justice demands that we be punished, not Jesus. People who think that our guilt is somehow transferred to Jesus have what appears to me to be an insurmountable problem.
But I do not see God’s problem as how to uphold justice while still dispensing mercy. I see God’s problem as how to destroy sin without destroying the sinner. I think a major Biblical view was that sin was an evil disease - like ebola - that ultimately led to a person’s complete death. Thus, sin had to be removed from a person and destroyed.
I think the story of the bronze serpent was meant to serve as a good analogy. The people have been bitten by fiery serpents and will die. Looking on the bronze serpent heals them of whatever venom is in them.
I think this is the best way to understand the Atonement. We are infected with the disease of sin. It pervades our very nature. What is the cure? Jesus dies on the cross, and by having faith in him, we are united with him in his death. Our diseased sinful nature is put to death in him, and we are raised in his new, resurrected life, free of the disease of sin.
So yes, Jesus died for our sins. But I do not think it was to satisfy justice. It was to cure us without destroying us. Yes, we must die. There is no other way to get rid of the disease of sin. But if we die in Jesus, we can be saved and given a new, uncorrupted nature and life.