Restoring God’s Image — (Part 2)

Peter TeWinkle
Aug 26, 2017 · 13 min read

I’m thinking about writing a book. It’s about the way we imagine God and how we embody that image in our lives (or not). I’m going to test it out on Medium. You can read Part 1 of the Introduction first. Here we go!

The Beginning

St. Anselm

We begin with a man named Anselm who was born in Italy in 1033. As an adult he settled in northern France among the Normans. That’s important to know because the Normans were an especially ambitious group of people who often invaded other countries in order to conquer and claim them. A few years after Anselm moved to France, the Normans conquered England. A few decades after that, Anselm was made head of the church. He became the Archbishop of Canterbury. All of this is to say that Anselm was in a position of power and influence and in relationships with powerful and influential people. So, anything that Anselm wrote about God and the death of Jesus would have shaped powerful and influential people.

You should also know that Anselm was writing in a time and place far different from the one in which you find yourself reading. There were kings and nobles, vassals and serfs. Lords were overseers of the kingdom and chose who got to own the land. Those who were chosen became vassals. Vassals paid tribute to the king and, in exchange, were given military protection and pieces of land to own. Serfs worked the land and belonged to the land, but could not own the land or even leave. The relationship between them was defined by loyalty and honor.

Honor came with status. For example, the king was the most honorable and deserved the greatest loyalty. Any offence against someone of equal or greater status would result in a debt. The only honorable way to handle a debt was for it to be repaid through fines, slavery, or punishment. The debt must be paid. In fact, it would have been a dishonorable thing to leave the debt unpaid. Not only would it have made the king appear weak, but it would have caused a break in the system. Leaving the debt unpaid would have been dishonorable because it would disrupt the way things are “supposed” to work. It would have been wrong.

As Anselm began writing about God and the death of Jesus, one of the things that he was trying to explain was why God, who was higher in honor and status than even the king, would stoop so low as to send his Son to be a poor carpenter of such low status. Anselm was trying to answer the question, “Why would we honor someone as king who died such a dishonorable death as a criminal on a cross?” It seemed wrong for God to do such a thing and, therefore, wrong to worship a god like that. Anselm borrowed from his own world to explain what was going on.

God, as Lord of the world, had given us rights over the land. In a sense, we were vassals. God had made promises to us for protection against our enemies and to provide for us through the land. In return we were to live loyally, honor God with our worship, and pay a tribute to the Lord as King. Unfortunately, as the story goes, we did not keep our end of the bargain. This is where sin comes in. Our sins are acts that dishonor God and, therefore, we have incurred a debt.

This is not just any debt. Because the offence is against God, a king of eternal honor, the debt is an eternal one. The payment, then, must also be an eternal one. It would not only require some form of payment, but an eternal payment at that. Remember, a debt must be paid. It would be dishonorable to leave a debt unpaid. It would make the king appear weak and it would be disruptive to the way things are “supposed” to work. It would be wrong. Unfortunately, since all humans are temporary beings, no human would be able to pay this eternal debt. However, since humans are the ones who have acquired the debt, it must be a human who does pay it.

For Anselm, the death of Jesus takes care of the debt that stands between God and us. We have dishonored God with our sinful living and incurred a debt. So, God sends Jesus, his one and only Son, to take on human form (because humans are in debt) to pay back the eternal debt (which only he can do because he is God’s eternal Son). With the debt paid through the death of Jesus the relationship between God and humans, between the Lord and his vassals was restored. The debt no longer stood in the way so the world could go back to the way it was intended to be.

For Anselm, God had to send his Son to take human form in order to maintain the order of the universe. So, what appears to be a dishonorable act is actually the only honorable thing to do. After all, God couldn’t have simply forgiven the debt. The debt was too big and would have resulted in the loss of too much honor. God was not doing something unreasonable, weak, or foolish in sending his Son to take on human form. Instead, he was maintaining the balance of the universe. He was restoring the world back to the way it was “supposed” to work.

You can see what Anselm has done. In trying to help people understand God and the death of Jesus he used an example from the world they understood very well. Anselm basically said that God is the king of heaven just like the kings you know on earth. God is a Lord who protects you and provides for you and expects tribute and demands that debts are paid in a timely and honorable way. See, nothing strange here at all.

What Anselm doesn’t do is ever question the way things are “supposed” to work. Anselm never expresses concern that the system he knows so well on earth might be unjust or unfaithful. In other words, he makes God fit into his expectations of the world rather than have the world fit into his expectations of God. In doing so he teaches every king to think that demanding the payment of debts is the right thing to do. By teaching that God uses death as a proper payment, he is letting every king and lord and noble feel justified in demanding the death of those who are in their debt.

Every time a king or lord or noble attended a service of worship there would be symbols and rituals that reminded them about God and the death of Jesus and how it all works. I don’t think that Anselm intended to contribute to a “spirit of punishment” as he wrote about God and the death of Jesus. But, the unintended consequence of his work has been to make God seem a “friend of cruel spectacles.”

William, Duke of Normandy

So, when William, Duke of Normandy, invades and conquers England with great cruelty, he can do so as he “attends mass every day” and “builds more cathedrals than castles.” (God’s Just Vengeance, Gorringe, p. 86). Think Michael Corleone at the baptism of his child renouncing sin and evil while, at the same time, his orders of murder are being carried out in The Godfather II.

Imagine how the world might have been different if, as the kings and lords and nobles attended worship, they heard instead about a God who forgives debts. What if the symbols and rituals of worship would have reminded them of a God who relents from punishing? How would they have thought differently about the debts that were owed to them? How would they have felt differently about punishing those under their care? Would the way things are “supposed” to work have changed to become more kind and just for those with less honor and status? The hope of this book is to teach people to think and feel differently so that kindness and justice might be more available to those very people.

Before we move on, I want to introduce you to one more influential thinker and theologian. His name is John Calvin. He was born about 500 years after Anselm, but in a similar place. He grew up in France and is well-known for the work he did while in Geneva, Switzerland. While the place was similar in terms of where it was, it was very different in terms of how it was run.

If Anselm lived in kingdoms among lords and vassals, Calvin lived in cities among councils and citizens. If Anselm thought of God as a lord, Calvin thought of God as a judge. If Anselm wrote in terms of honor, loyalty, and debt, Calvin wrote in terms law, guilt, and penalty. It wasn’t a totally new world, but it was in the process of changing. John Calvin was a church and city leader during the time of the Reformation. It was a time when new states, courts, laws, beliefs and churches would develop. But, despite the differences and the changes, the message of God and the death of Jesus were taught by these two men in very similar ways.

John Calvin

Since John Calvin was trained in a law school it seems understandable that he would use the law to talk about God and the death of Jesus. That’s especially true since a major portion of the Bible is devoted to the commandments that God gave to his people through Moses (e.g. Exodus 19–20). Law is also a concept that his readers and listeners would have recognized and understood. Like us, they can picture a courtroom, a judge, plaintiffs and defendants. Like us, they understood what it meant to break the law, be found guilty and sentenced with some penalty.

The words that are used to describe Calvin’s understanding of God and the death of Jesus are penal substitution. I don’t think he ever used these words. They are probably a more accurate description of those who came after him, but whom he definitely influenced. Nevertheless, they are two words that will help us understand what John Calvin saw when he looked at Jesus on the cross.

The world penal refers to the penalty or punishment. Like Anselm, for Calvin all of humanity is part of the problem. We have all sinned and fallen short. In Calvin’s terms, we have all broken the law. As a result, God’s justice demands that we receive a punishment. But, this is no ordinary law. It’s no ordinary crime. So, the punishment can be no ordinary punishment.

Around the time of John Calvin’s death in 1564 a document was written called The Heidelberg Catechism. It’s a series of questions and answers that was (and sometimes still is) used to instruct Christians and promote unity among the churches. But it is a good example of the kind of theology that John Calvin was promoting. This document uses some very stark language about God and the punishment that he has determined.

“God is terribly angry with the sin we are born with as well as the sins we personally commit. As a just judge, God will punish them both now and in eternity.” — Q&A 10

“God’s justice demands that sin, committed against his supreme majesty, be punished with the supreme penalty — eternal punishment of body and soul.” — Q&A 11

“God will not punish any other creature for what human is guilty of. Furthermore, no mere creature can bear the weight of God’s eternal wrath against sin and deliver others from it.” — Q&A 14

You can see in those words the themes of law and guilt and a penalty that meets the demands of justice. They capture in a very clear way the penal part of Calvin’s understanding when it comes to God and the death of Jesus. Clearly, the focus is on the crime and the just penalty that that crime deserves. It will be a supreme penalty and an eternal punishment. However, we are not without hope.

The word substitution refers to the role that Jesus plays in God’s just judgment. We are familiar with substitute teachers who fill in when the regular teacher is away or sick. If you play sports, you know that there are substitutions. One player steps in for another when there are injured or tired or playing poorly. In either case, a substitute takes on the roll so that the other person does not have to. Ideally, the regular teacher does not have to go back over the previous lessons or return to the previous day because the substitute has done it. Likewise, the player who has gone to the bench does not have to go in and make up the time that her substitute has played. She can simply enter the game and pick up where her substitute left off.

Let’s return to The Heidelberg Catechism again:

“God requires that his justice be satisfied. Therefore, the claims of this justice must be paid in full, either by ourselves or by another.” — Q&A 12 (italics mine)

Jesus “is our mediator and, in God’s sight, he covers with his innocence and perfect holiness my sinfulness in which I was conceived.” — Q&A 36

“During his whole life on earth, but especially at the end, Christ sustained in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race.” — Q&A 37

“So that he, though innocent, might be condemned…and so free us from the severe judgment of God that was to fall on us.” — Q&A 38

“By this I am convinced that he shouldered the curse which lay on me, since the death by crucifixion was cursed by God.” — Q&A 39

“Because God’s justice and truth require it: nothing else could pay for our sins except the death of the Son of God.” — Q&A 40

You can see in those words the same themes of law and guilt and a penalty that meets the demands of justice. But, you also see words about Jesus’ role as a substitute. Jesus’ innocence covers our sinfulness. He sustained in his body the wrath that was against us. Jesus was condemned with the severe judgment of God so that we could be free. He shouldered the curse that lay on me. His death paid the penalty for our sins. In other words, Jesus filled in and stepped in for us so that the demands of God’s truth and justice could be met.

For Calvin, Jesus’ death deals with God’s anger toward our sin. Unlike Anselm who was concerned with the debt that stood between God and us, Calvin was concerned about God himself. God is terribly angry with us. That anger demands a full satisfaction of justice. Jesus is the only one who was able to do that as a divine person who took on human flesh. In the end, it was the death of an innocent man that was the answer to God’s anger about the life of sinful humanity.

You can see what Calvin has done. In trying to help people understand God and the death of Jesus he used an example from the world they understood very well. Calvin basically said that God is the judge of heaven just like the judges you know on earth. God is a just judge who is right to demand penalties for the crimes that have been committed. In doing so he teaches every judge to think of penalties as a form of justice. Every councilman and citizen learned to be satisfied by punishment, even death.

What Calvin doesn’t do is question why God’s justice must be satisfied in such harsh ways. If God is as merciful as he is just, why is it something that seems so cruel and extreme (i.e. the death of an innocent man) that makes things right? It’s as if God has no other choice but to meet the demands of the law. If that’s true, doesn’t that make God a servant of the law? Shouldn’t the law be a servant of God? Does God have no discretion when it comes to crimes committed against him by those we are told he loves?

John Calvin is often given too much blame for what Calvinism becomes. That’s what followers of his beliefs are called. Calvin himself could write beautifully of God’s mercy. He wrote about God in ways other than a just judge. He could be very warm and tender in his writing and teaching about God. Like Anselm, I don’t think Calvin ever intended to promote a “spirit of punishment” in the world. But, the unintended consequence of his work has been to make God seem a “friend of cruel spectacles.”

Every time a councilman or judge attended a worship service there would be symbols and rituals that reminded them about God’s terrible anger, just judgment, and supreme penalty. Wherever Calvin’s teachings spread, punishing sentences would follow (Gorringe p. 140). Even Calvin would find himself condemning his opponents and even having one burned at the stake; a cruel spectacle indeed. Having been presented with pictures of the divine council and supreme judge, they would return to their courtrooms determined that justice be fully satisfied.

Imagine how the world might have been different if, as the councilman, judges, and prosecutors attended worship, they heard instead about a God who forgives sins. What if the symbols and rituals of worship would have reminded them of a God who, though terribly angry, loved his people more than his law? How would they have thought differently about the criminals who stood before them? How would they have felt differently about punishing those in their courts? Would their desire to punish been transformed into a desire to reform and restore? The hope of this book is to teach people to think and feel differently about those who break the law so that they might find the help and the hope they need to be restored.

In the next post I look at little more closely at who God is according to the Bible.

)
Peter TeWinkle

Written by

Partner, Parent, Pastor & potential Placemaker pursuing God's peace and stopping occasionally to play golf.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade