Moral Government – The problem of the law

Moral Government Atonement Theory is a view held by Methodists and also some Arminians. Both camps won’t have the exact same take on this view. Some might emphasize God’s wrath and retributive justice more than others. However, the view I will espouse here, I will try to aim for a more Methodist approach. In a sentence, Moral Government could be summarized as: A defense and demonstration of God’s justice and mercy to show the seriousness of sin and the need for humanity to be reconciled to God. I mostly see the Governmental model as a defense of God’s justice and a demonstration of upholding His moral order rather than it being the direct mechanism by which we are saved. Some see this view as a good balance between the roles of justice and mercy. In this view, God’s wrath wasn’t poured out on Jesus—It was poured out on sin. Jesus didn’t pay the penalty of our sin—He suffered for our sin. There was no commercial price that needed to be paid. Rather, the atonement was a demonstration of God upholding His justice and moral order since He couldn’t just ignore His own laws by letting sin off the hook. By Jesus dying on the cross, it showed to us the seriousness of sin and the need for our repentance. His death vindicated God’s justice through fulfilling and upholding the law’s demands. Jesus’ death wasn’t to satisfy retributive justice or to be a one-to-one substitute for humanity. Rather, His death satisfied public justice (governmental justice). Retributive justice treats everyone according to their character, their merits, and the full extent of the law. Public justice, however, can make exceptions to the full extent of the law by punishments or remediation in accordance with the common good of the public. Charles Finney put it this way:

There is an important distinction between retributive and public justice. Retributive justice consists in treating every subject of government according to his character. It respects the intrinsic merit or demerit of each individual, and deals with him accordingly. Public justice, in its exercise, consists in the promotion and protection of the public interests, by such legislation and such an administration of law, as is demanded by the highest good of the public. It implies the execution of the penalties of law where the precept is violated, unless something else is done that will as effectually secure the public interests. When this is done, public justice demands, that the execution of the penalty shall be dispensed with by extending pardon to the criminal. Retributive justice makes no exceptions, but punishes without mercy in every instance of crime. Public justice makes exceptions, as often as this is permitted or required by the public good. Public justice is identical with the spirit of the moral law, and in its exercise, regards only the spirit of the law. Retributive justice cleaves to the letter, and makes no exceptions to the rule, "the soul that sinneth, it shall die."
(Finney’s Systematic Theology, 1851 Ed. Lecture XXXIV Atonement: gospeltruth.net)

God’s laws are intended for the good of His creatures and to uphold moral order in the universe. God is as a father to all His creation who loves them and wants the best for them. We are all His children and God’s laws for us is about Him seeking the best for us and our own well-being. In this way, God’s wrath against sinners is remedial to have them turn from their evil ways so that they do not destroy themselves, destroy others, or ruin their lives. God hates sin because it destroys His good creation, turning them into what is not, perverting the good that He had made, and is harmful to them. The atonement is not about satisfying God’s wrath or paying a debt to sin or God but rather, to demonstrate God’s hatred for sin, His love for humanity, and maintaining law and order.

Salvation and forgiveness come through faith in God’s love and mercy and turning from sin to live in a right relationship before God. We are pardoned only if we are truly penitent. Meaning, our forgiveness is conditional upon our continual repentance. The Governmental model avoids legalism and antinomianism. Legalism is the seeking of acceptance before God based upon our good works and performance while antinomianism is a careless attitude towards God’s law to live however we want since God has forgiven us. It avoids legalism because our faith is in God, His love, and His good desire to see us succeed. His wrath is out of love for us and for the good of all humanity and God’s hatred is with sin—not the sinner. For this reason, we can have confidence in His love for us even when we sin—because He is always for us and His heart is always well-disposed toward us. This view also avoids antinomianism because our forgiveness is conditional like in the parable of the unforgiving servant (Mt 6:14-15; 18:21-34). We can’t just live however we want and say that we’re saved. If we have been forgiven much but fail to forgive others, then that is evidence that our hearts were never transformed through God’s love and grace or that our hearts have grown cold and have spiritually died.

This view that I have espoused on the Governmental Atonement is a mixture between what I have learned about it on YouTube and websites along with some of my own thoughts. This is a view that may need to be added to the classical view of the atonement to defend God’s honor against sin as He forgives or to demonstrate the reality and seriousness of God’s law, sin, and it’s penalty or consequence. The Apostle Paul mentions the necessity of God’s good law for people as a tutor that leads them to repentance (Gal 3:24; Ro 7:12). For this reason, it is important that we do not neglect teaching God’s law, His commandments, and hatred for sin. It is only out of the acknowledgement that we are wrong, sinful, and in need of grace that we can truly repent to receive that grace. John writes that “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 Jn 1:8). Some people genuinely think that they are good and acceptable to God just how they are because they try to do what is good and right but meanwhile they are blinded by the reality of their sin and don’t see how far they have fallen short of meeting God’s moral standard. If someone says they have no sin or do not ever sin, then they are deceived and do not have salvation. They must understand that all the good works that they can muster up is not sufficient and that they must rest in God’s grace and mercy to be saved. You will not be saved simply because God is an all-loving God. You must receive His forgiveness and have a repentant heart that will result in turning from sin. God will uphold and maintain His moral standard.

Where there is no law and order there is a breakdown of society and a breakdown of trust in the king. If standards are not maintained, people may begin to think that the king doesn’t enforce the law or they may presume upon the king’s mercy to pardon them because he is so benevolent and so this presumption upon the king’s grace might lead others into rebellion and living however they want by disregarding the law. Therefore, God needed to demonstrate His righteousness to show the seriousness of the matter before not only mankind but all the hosts of heaven. Otherwise, what would they say about God’s justice and moral uprightness? Could God be trusted? Could He be taken seriously? Will the Judge of all the earth do right?

Governmental Atonement may deny or refuse to speak of sin as being an offense against God or a sin against His honor but may see it more of simply breaking the law of the land. This is where Satisfaction theory sees a deficiency in the Governmental model and would raise it up one by adding some things.

In Governmental Atonement, there was no gratification that God needed to satisfy or appease His wrath. God does not have an appetite or need for blood. The blood wasn’t for God but for humanity. God was already well-disposed toward us in His compassion and mercy willing to forgive as we see in John 3:16 that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. The cross was about reconciling man to God—not God to man. Blood is not needed to satisfy the letter of the law. The law requires the punishment of the guilty and the sinner, not the innocent. For this reason, Jesus, the innocent one, did not penally die on our behalf. He died as a demonstration of the justice of God of the penalty that we deserved to motivate humanity toward repentance.

Romans 3:25

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

God’s retributive wrath is not mentioned here. What we see instead is that Jesus’ death on the cross was a gift to us. It is explicitly said to be a gift yet you will not find any Bible verse that explicitly says that Jesus suffered God’s wrath. If then it was a gift, could it also be a payment? Wouldn’t that be a contradiction?

Colossians 2:13-15

When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

The mechanism spoken here of our forgiveness is not about paying off our debt but about cancelling it. This passage also does not say that it was the wrath of the Father against us but it was the law that stood against us. This law of decrees against us in which we could not meet the standard, God nailed it to the cross. Meaning, the law no longer condemns us because Jesus took care of the law for us. He made us alive in Him so that we are no longer condemned; instead, we are forgiven. The Father wasn’t hostile to us—it was the law that was hostile to us. The theological picture of the cross here is one of triumph, not weakness and agony.

The atonement is pictured in Romans 3 and Colossians 2 as a display and demonstration. The mechanism of the atonement in Romans 3:25 is “through faith” and that faith comes through the public display of Jesus’ death. One of the purposes of this public display was “to demonstrate His righteousness” so that God would be both “just and the justifier.” If St. Athanasius were alive today, I believe he would call this “the divine consistency.” God needed to show humanity how seriously He took His own law that He demonstrated through the crucifixion of the Godman, Jesus, that the law needed to be fulfilled and Jesus fulfilled it. The law says that the sinner should die and Jesus died. Since God put Himself under His own law though He was not worthy or deserving of its judgement since He was innocent, He could now be both just and the justifier. That is, no one could accuse Him of wrongdoing for letting sinners go free by His forgiveness. And at the same time, His suffering made Him worthy to condemn those who disobey the law since He knows firsthand the experience of mankind since He partook Himself also in the same. Jesus is therefore just when He condemns and just when He forgives. Those whom He forgives are made just (right before God) through faith. God “passed over the sins previously committed.” That is, He forgave and remitted people’s sins before the coming of Jesus but God did not see it fitting to simply pass over sin while ignoring the law. It is for this reason that Jesus came and demonstrated God’s righteousness on the cross. Jesus paid the penalty of the law only insofar as it was a demonstration of the law’s demands. Therefore, it wasn’t a literal payment and His death was not an exact substitution. Jesus’ death satisfied public/communal justice, providing the pathway for humanity’s restoration. All of this allows God’s wrath to pass over our sin provided that we repent. As long as we continue in faith we will be saved but if we lose our faith, we will not be saved.

In the gospels, Jesus does seem to present a narrative about judgement and this narrative is about the law being the judge rather than God being the judge. Not that we deny God as being the judge over all but it is really the law that we have to deal with as being the problem that we face. In Jesus’ and the Apostle’s words, we see that God is well-disposed toward us and does not condemn us. It is the law that condemns us. The million-dollar question is why? For now though, that is beyond the scope of this lesson so we will just present the facts.

John 3:16-21

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.

The Bible says that Jesus did not come to condemn us. Therefore, I find that any theology that proposes Jesus’ incarnation, death, and resurrection brought upon humanity greater suffering and judgement to be reprehensible. Jesus did not resurrect to give all souls immortality that without His resurrection, condemned souls would cease to be. In other words, Jesus’ resurrection did not produce immortality for all so that most people would live on forever in eternal conscious torment in hell. That would be a reprehensible doctrine. If that were the case, it would be better for God to never have made man or to wipe out the rest of their earthly existence so as not to produce more souls to live forever in the torments of hell. And it would be better if Jesus never came into this world than if His very coming into this world were to produce such catastrophic results. Jesus did not come into the world to condemn and judge the world, but to save it. Being saved by Jesus is achieved through believing in Him. Those who do not believe in Jesus are judged already because they themselves have condemned themselves through their acknowledgement of seeing the light but refusing to come to it because of their fear that their wickedness would be exposed. The judgement they receive is the product of their own choice. There was the light that came into the world to bring life and healing but evil men refused Jesus who was and is that light. They chose darkness instead. They chose death. Therefore, it was the natural law of death that condemned them through their own choice. This is an example of consequential justice.

John 12:46-48

I have come as Light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness. If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.

Again, Jesus distances Himself from being the judge and says He did not come into the world to judge it. Jesus instead places the focus on the standard of truth that they have received, the word that He had spoken to them. Basically, if you want to call it this: the law of life. Those who disobey the law of life by not believing in the Son, they will be judged. It is therefore, the law that will judge them on the last day. Jesus also said to the Jews, “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me” (Jn 5:45-46). Jesus again distances Himself as the judge and points to the law/words of Moses as being their judge. Matthew 12:36 Jesus says, “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Our obedience or disobedience to the law is what will judge us. In John 8:11, 15 Jesus speaks to the woman caught in adultery and instead of stoning her Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either.” And to the pharisees, “You judge according to the flesh; I am not judging anyone.” James writes, “So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.” Jesus came to rescue us from the curse and condemnation of the law (Ro 8:3; Gal 3:13; 4:5). Though He has the role of Judge (Jn 5:22, 26-29; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Ro 2:16), He is not very quick or enthusiastic about assuming that role. Jesus really doesn’t want to condemn and judge us but there is a law and standard He must abide by. Otherwise, He would be unrighteous and would not maintain “the divine consistency.”

In Matthew 12:7 Jesus says, “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.” Obeying the law was never about obeying the letter of the law for the sake of the letter. It’s about obedience from the heart to love God and love people. God wants our hearts. He doesn’t just want us to do the right thing. Therefore, our greatest offense against Him is when our hearts are against Him. Surely, a God like this isn’t petty with our offenses, is He? Would He truly send sinners to Eternal Conscious Torment in Hell? How could our offenses truly injure the God who made the entire universe whom we are like grains of sand in comparison or like microscopic particles? God, who is love loves His creation and desires the good of all. Jesus, who loves the Father, desires that we respect and honor the Father. But how severe will our judgement be if we fail to love and honor the Father from this Jesus who also loves us so much that while we were enemies, He gave His life for us?

If He desires us to abide by the spirit of the law would God not also be free and willing to operate by the spirit of the law and in so doing commute our sentence? Surely, He can. That is to say: the public justice of Jesus on the cross enabled Him to maintain the divine consistency and for this reason, He can pardon us without injury to His reputation or just demands of the law.

Will this Judge, Jesus, judge without partiality with righteous judgement? Surely, God will judge humanity in righteousness but He sent His Son to uphold the righteous demands of the law and public justice so that all those who turn to Him in faith and repentance can be saved rather than being condemned according to what the law requires. When God’s remedial justice is effective at restoring humanity to a right relationship with Him, there is no longer a need for retributive justice on those sinners.

More quotes from Charles Finney:

Whatever can as effectually reveal God, make known his hatred to sin, his love of order, his determination to support government, and to promote the holiness and happiness of his creatures, as the execution of his law would do, is a full satisfaction of public justice.

An atonement was needed to inspire confidence in the offers and promises of pardon, and in all the promises of God to man. Guilty, selfish man finds it difficult, when thoroughly convicted of sin, to realize and believe, that God is actually sincere in his promises and offers of pardon and salvation. But whenever the soul can apprehend the reality of the atonement, it can then believe every offer and promise as the very thing to be expected from a being who could give his Son to die for enemies.

An atonement was needed, not to render God merciful, but to reconcile pardon with a due administration of justice.

(Finney’s Systematic Theology, 1851 Ed. Lecture XXXIV Atonement: gospeltruth.net)

Charles Finney held to the Moral Government model of the atonement and was a revivalist of the Second Great Awakening and was said to have had 500,000 converts to Christianity and great success at keeping most of them faithful. Leonard Ravenhill speaks of this and attributes that success to preaching the law of God. This is what he had to say:

He didn’t preach the love of God. He didn’t say “you’re a sinner, God loves you.” He said “God is angry with the wicked every day” which the Word of God says. He didn’t preach grace, he preached Law. He didn’t preach love, he preached judgment. He didn’t preach heaven, he preached hell. He didn’t say “you’re a wonderful person” he said “you’re a rebel”. But he got results. 64% of D. L. Moodys converts backslid, 72% of the converts Finney got stood because he knew how to attack the human will, not just the emotions.

What do you think? Was it the man? The method? The Anointing? Is there a balanced approach between preaching law and grace? How would that look like? A.W. Tozer found a method to distance God from the one that judges us and speaks instead of the law or justice as judging us. He said:

That holy suffering there on the cross and that resurrection from the dead cancels our sins and abrogates our sentence. Where and how did we get that sentence? We got it by the application of justice to a moral situation. No matter how nice and refined and lovely you think you are, you are a moral situation—you have been, you still are, you will be. And when God confronted you, God’s justice confronted a moral situation and found you unequal, found inequity, found iniquity. Because He found iniquity there, God sentenced you to die. Everybody has been or is under the sentence of death. I wonder how people can be so jolly under the sentence of death. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” (Ezekiel 18:20). When justice confronts a moral situation in a man, woman, young person, or anybody morally responsible, then either it justifies or condemns that person. That’s how we got that sentence. (The Radical Cross by A.W. Tozer, pg. 15)

Tozer then mentions, “Jesus Christ did not die to change God; Jesus Christ died to change a moral situation. When God’s justice confronts an unprotected sinner that justice sentences him to die. And all of God concurs in the sentence!” (pg. 16). As Tozer previously explained, “All the attributes of God concur in a man’s death sentence” (c.f. Rev 16:5, 7), “You’ll never find in heaven a group of holy beings finding fault with the way God conducts His foreign policy. God Almighty is conducting His world, and every moral creature says, “True and righteous are thy judgements… Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne” (Rev 16:7; Ps 89:14).