Jesus Isn’t Justice
By Alan D. Griffin
The innocent Jesus Christ taking the punishment of the guilty multitude as a satisfactory way of maintaining the understood concept of Justice is not compatible with the legal concept of Justice that involves punishment to uphold the law in order to maintain justice.
In the Christian worldview the idea of all morals and justice stems from and can only stem from divine command. Divine command theory argues that justice and morality as a whole is the authoritative command of God. Murder is wrong and must be punished, for instance, because, and only because God commands it to be so. Divine command theory was questioned by Plato in a famous dialogue known as the Euthyphro dilemma, it goes as follows: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" This question implies that if something is morally good because it is commanded by God to be morally good, then justice is arbitrary. If what is considered morally good is commanded by God because something is morally good, then morality exists on a higher order than God, which would make God simply a giver of information about moral knowledge, not the author. The Christian worldview concludes that something is morally good because God commands that it is moral, But, I doubt you would find anyone that would agree that justice is arbitrary in any practical way.
Justice in the legal systems of most of the western world is concerned with fairness, equality, and balance. This system comes from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned or at least a consensus based on what they would agree to be just under hypothetical conditions and in situations including the idea of equality and in the absence of bias. Out of this mutual agreement we create laws which outline the agreed upon morality and justice. We then come to punishment which is key and seems to be inevitably linked to justice. The idea is that Justice must be maintain for a society to succeed. So we decide through a mutual agreement what is just and what is unjust, we then create laws to ensure that the mutual agreement is upheld. We then must create punishment for those who break the law and thereby go against what we mutually agreed was just. Punishment is imperative to give any authority to the law without it the law is little more than a guide that one can go by or not. If some people are allowed to choose not to go by the law this gives them an unfair advantage over those who do go by the law at the very least and could cause physical harm or death to others at the very most. Therefore punishment is essential to maintain the law, and by maintaining the law, maintain justice. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who is widely considered to be a central figure of modern philosophy who argued that fundamental concepts structure human experience and that reason is the source of morality. Kant argued in Metaphysics of Morals the following:"Judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society, but instead it must in all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he has committed a crime." Kant regards punishment as a matter of justice, and it must be carried out by the state for the sake of the law, not for the sake of the criminal or the victim. He argues that if the guilty are not punished, justice is not done and if justice is not done, then the idea of law itself is undermined.
Other reasons that justify punishment to maintain law are things like punishment as a deterrent. By preventing those who may be contemplating committing a crime, which they have not committed, from actually committing it. The punishment is intended to be sufficient enough that people would choose not to commit a crime rather than experience the punishment. Rehabilitation which are forms of punishment designed to change the attitude of the criminal to see and agree that the crime was wrong. Incapacitation for the protection of society is punishment which removes the offender from the community removing or reducing the ability to break the law. The concept of Restoration which is punishment that take the form of righting the wrong done by the breaking of the law. Education and denunciation punishment is meant to educate or reeducate the public at large on the mutual agreement of what is just and what is unjust and give a negative stigma to the offender ostracizing them from the community and acting as a deterrent. Retributive justice is central to the notion of Justice in the western world which comes from the concept that most crime gives a benefit to the criminal and a loss of some kind to the victim. Retribution is a type of punishment which tries to rebalance things by ensuring that the criminal suffers a loss comparable to the loss of the victim. The second concept in the idea of retribution is to diminish the felt need of the victim to retaliate against the offender which leads to street justice, feuds, vigilantism, etc. The statue of lady justice shows how much the idea of retribution is instilled in our legal system. The symbolism of the scales as trying to keep everything in balance and a blindfold to indicate the unbias nature of justice.
In the legal system we use a variety of punishments agreed upon by consensus to be just in regards to the breaking of a variety of laws. If someone commits 1st degree murder the punishment for that crime can be as severe as life imprisonment or where allowed the death penalty. For the benefit of the argument let us focus on the crime of 1stdegree murder and assume that the death penalty is an allowable punishment. I am going to give two analogical scenerios that try to determine if the innocent Jesus Christ dying in the place of the guilty multitude is in fact serving the concept of Justice. The first is a scenario I have heard time and time again in evangelical circles to show how Justice was indeed served. Ray Comfort with Way of the Master ministries is probably the one who uses this scenario the most to explain Jesus as a savior. I will then give my own scenario that shows that the concept of Justice as is commonly understood is not served by the death of Jesus Christ on behalf of the sins of the world. I will accomplish this by simply shifting the perspective of the reader.
You ( the sinner) are found guilty of murder and you stand before the judge (God) for sentencing. The Judge (God) wants to grant you (the sinner) mercy but he cannot for the law demands that someone must pay for the crime of murder. If he lets you go without punishment then Justice is not met and he would be an unjust Judge. As the Judge (God) contemplates this his son ( Jesus) enters the courtroom and states that he would be willing to take the punishment ascribed by the law himself if the judge (God) agrees to set you (the sinner)free with a full pardon. The Judge wanting at the deepest level to show you mercy even at the cost of the freedom of his son (Jesus) agrees on the basis that the law requires someone to pay for the crime and since someone (his son) is willing to fulfill this requirement. The Judge (God) agrees because he can show mercy, fulfill the requirements of the law and still remain a just judge. Has Justice in the normal human understanding of Justice been met? I have heard person after person agree that justice was met when they are the hypothetical guilty party. Now, let us look at this same scenario from a different perspective and see if Justice as we normally conceive of it is met.
Imagine you are at a park on a beautiful Saturday afternoon with your small son or daughter. The park is bustling with other parents and children as you sit on a park bench watching your child swinging. An unassuming man (the sinner) walks up next to the swing pulls out a hand gun and shoots your small child point blank in the head. Your small child falls over dead from the wound. Before you can react or take justice into your own hands an off duty police officer who happened to be at the park draws his sidearm and quickly subdues and arrests the man (the sinner). There are a hundred witnesses to this terrible tragedy and the man’s day in court comes quickly. The man (the sinner) is asked to give a plea by the judge (God) and the man (the sinner) pleads guilty to the crime which will demand the death penalty due to the premeditation and number of witnesses. The man (the sinner) pleads (prays) with the court to have mercy and openly admits he knew what he did was wrong and is convincing that he is remorseful and would stay away from any crime in the future. The Judge’s son (Jesus) happen to be in the courtroom and truly believe he (the sinner) is remorseful and will turn his life away from any crime. The son of the judge (Jesus) stand up and speak directly to the court. “Your honor (our Father) I believe this man (sinner) is truly remorseful and I also know that the law is clear someone has to be punished for this crime.” The Judge (God) agrees that the man (sinner) is remorseful but the law demands punishment for such a heinous crime. His son (Jesus) continue speaking “Since this is the case, I want to accept the punishment for this man (sinner) myself in exchange for his immediate and unconditional release.” The Judge (God) agrees but gives mercy and sentences him (Jesus) to life in prison rather than the death penalty since he did not actually commit the crime. The man (sinner) who shot your small child for no apparent reason is immediately set free. People hear of what the Judge’s son (Jesus) has done for this guilty man (sinner) and are so moved that they begin to shower him (Jesus) with gifts and even one wealthy man wants to give him a check for 100 million dollars. He (Jesus) send all the gifts to the man (sinner) who shot your child and tell the public that any future gifts to also be sent to this man (sinner). He even tell the Wealthy man if he truly wants to show him gratitude for what he has done to also give the 100 million dollars to the guilty man (sinner) which he does. Do you believe justice has been served for the death of your child? The guilty man (sinner) calls (prays) to him (Jesus) every day thanking him for what he has done on his behalf and he comes to every visitor’s day. After the first five years his (sinner) calls become less and less frequent and he begins to have excuses why he can’t come see him (Jesus) on many of the visitor’s days. One day the guilty man (sinner) walks into a park walks up to a small child pulls out a pistol and at point blank range shoots the child in the head and he is quickly arrested. Come to find out this child is the best friend of your recently murdered child. He uses his one phone call to call The Judge’s son (Jesus) and apologizes and he (the sinner) is convincingly remorseful and swears to turn away from a life of crime. He (sinner) finds himself once again in front of the same judge (God) and the man (sinner) immediately pleads guilty admitting that he knew that what he did was wrong and he was deeply remorseful. The Judge’s son (Jesus) was allowed to come to the trial and once again he stands up and speak on the man’s (sinner’s) behalf that he (Jesus) believe he (the sinner) is truly remorseful and in some way it is not his fault it is just in his nature and ask that he (Jesus) is punished in his place and the man (the sinner) to be immediately released. The judge (God) once again agrees and He (Jesus) is given the death penalty and the man (the sinner) is set free. The man (the sinner) calls him (Jesus) every day and comes to see him on every visitor’s day. Would you agree or disagree that Justice as it is commonly understood was served?
The interesting thing about the response to these scenarios is that most people would agree that in the first scenario in which they themselves are depicted as the guilty party or “the sinner” agree that justice has been served and that the law only calls for someone to be punished for this transgression and since someone was punished then the requirements of the law were fulfilled and Justice was served. Another reason that most people will call this justice other than the fact they are depicted as the guilty party is that the first scenario leaves out the gory details associated with the crime painting a very general image in your mind. Most people in response to the second scenario in which they are depicted as the victim do not agree that Justice was served and in fact would agree that it was an additional injustice on top of the initial crime itself. Other reasons they believe Justice was not served is that the second scenario has more details painting a more horrific picture in your head. The actual victim is also depicted as your child causing a strong emotional reaction to the scenario you are depicted in.
The answer is neither scenario depict Justice in any way we would define Justice in the modern everyday concept or Justice in how our laws and punishment are developed in service of Justice. Since we have noted that justice is a mutual agreement or consensus based on what they would agree to be just under hypothetical conditions and in situations including the idea of equality and in the absence of bias. So since both scenarios have an innocent man taking the punishment for a guilty man if one scenario is unjust then both scenarios are unjust. If you agree that the first scenario does depict a situation where justice was served and also agree that in the second scenario you agree justice was not served then that is depicting your bias toward the situation not justice which must be determined regardless of perspective. We have also determined that Justice is addressed through laws and by punishment which gives law their only source of authority. Both scenarios depicts a murderer who is found unequivocally guilty by the Judge. Both Scenarios show an innocent man who voluntarily takes the punishment of the guilty in place of the one who is actually guilty of the crime.
The only way around this is the divine command theory of Justice. But if they truly believe this is true than they must think this should be the set up for our legal system. Where the guilty can be found innocent and set free and an innocent man can be in prisoned for the guilty. I am not talking about those who falls through the cracks but this as the status quo for justice. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who thinks we should embrace this system of law and punishment. If you don't think this is a just legal system then you have to concede that that the innocent Jesus being put to death for the sins of others is not Justice either.