Divine Justice

[DaveXR650]

Now, reading the above, you said the purpose of punishment is to bring about justice by punishing the wicked. I said that punishment for law breakers satisfies justice. I am happy to include that it "brings about justice".

These two statements are not the same.

I am saying punishment is used to bring about justice.

You are saying that punishment satisfies justice.

I quoted again what I had already said in an earlier post. If you would rather use the terminology "to bring about" instead of "satisfy" I am OK with that. The meaning is still the same. The Christian argument for capital punishment says that it is commanded that someone who sheds a man's blood shall have his blood shed, and men are told by God to do that. What does that accomplish? Reconciliation? Rehabilitation? Restoring the person to their loved ones? No. So why would God demand that? For the satisfaction of justice. And God we think did that for several practical reasons too, some of which are only apparent if you think about it. If I follow God, then when someone takes a life we don't have a sanction to kill their whole family, village, or race. We also don't have an option to let them go or come up with another punishment. That would violate the standard of justice and not properly satisfy justice in the case of murder. And although that does sound like legal philosophy from the Reformation era, which came first, that, or the Bible. And which was derived from what? If the legal framework came from the Bible it is perfectly legitimate to use examples and philosophy from the legal framework.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Retributive justice is punishing an offender proportional to their crime.

Would you say then that retribution is recompensing sinners in a way appropriate to their crime?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is why it is an abomination to punish the Innocent. It is meaningless and unjust punishment, punishment for the sake of punishment.

Yet, whether you like it or not, God did punish Christ (Isaiah 53:5, ESV, NIV), He did 'bruise' or 'crush Him, and put Him to grief (v.10). Why do you think that was?

 

[JonC]

I quoted again what I had already said in an earlier post. If you would rather use the terminology "to bring about" instead of "satisfy" I am OK with that. The meaning is still the same. The Christian argument for capital punishment says that it is commanded that someone who sheds a man's blood shall have his blood shed, and men are told by God to do that. What does that accomplish? Reconciliation? Rehabilitation? Restoring the person to their loved ones? No. So why would God demand that? For the satisfaction of justice. And God we think did that for several practical reasons too, some of which are only apparent if you think about it. If I follow God, then when someone takes a life we don't have a sanction to kill their whole family, village, or race. We also don't have an option to let them go or come up with another punishment. That would violate the standard of justice and not properly satisfy justice in the case of murder. And although that does sound like legal philosophy from the Reformation era, which came first, that, or the Bible. And which was derived from what? If the legal framework came from the Bible it is perfectly legitimate to use examples and philosophy from the legal framework.

I do not think you understand the difference between "brings about" and "satisfies". I will try to explain because it is a big difference.

God punished David for his sin. The punishment did not satisfy justice. But that punishment led to David repenting and turning back to God. David repenting satisfied justice. So if God punished another for David's sin it would be unjust punishment.
If punishment itself satisfied justice then God could have punished anybody for David's sin and justice would have been accomplished.


Same with us. If punishment brings about justice then God punishing Jesus would require that Jesus repent for His sins and become right with God. But if punishment satisfies Justice all God has to do is punish.

The reason that God gave for Israel to punish those who violated the Law was so that the nation as a whole would be a people of God. It was not the punishment that satisfied justice but what the punishment was to bring about. Like God said, punishment is to "cast out evil".


But a lot of this depends on what one believes divine justice to be. Obviously it is not God's law (otherwise His law would not be one manifestation of His justice).

Since I believe divine justice is divine righteousness, punishment is to bring about righteousness. God tells us punishment does this with believers (it brings about repentance) and with the wicked at judgment (it upholds righteousness).

Biblically punishment never satisfies justice.

 

[JonC]

Yet, whether you like it or not, God did punish Christ (Isaiah 53:5, ESV, NIV), He did 'bruise' or 'crush Him, and put Him to grief (v.10). Why do you think that was?

It has nothing to do with what you or I like. The fact is Isaiah 53:5 did not say God bruised Him.

"It pleased God to bruise Him"
The verse could have at least two meanings.
1. It pleased God for Him to bruise Jesus
2. It pleased God to bruise Him (referencing vs 3-9).

To decide which is correct - #1 (your view) or #2 (my view) we should look for other pasages as Scripture interprets Scripture.

If we do we will find out that #2 provides the answer to what is not specified in Isaiah 53 (exactly who is committing the "oppression").

Christ suffered the power of Satan.
He died under the powers of evil.
This was God's predetermined plan.

 

[JonC]

Would you say then that retribution is recompensing sinners in a way appropriate to their crime?

No, because that would be insufficient as a definition.

Retribution can be positive or negative. If you are rewarded for yoyr actions thst is retribution. Theologically retribution is the distribution of rewards and punishment based on one's deeds.

So recompensing sinners in a way appropriate to their crime would be retribution... which is what I think you were getting at. But it would not make divine justice retribution justice.

Punishment (or retribution) does not satisfy divine justice.

Rewards for our deeds (or retribution) does not satisfy divine judgment.

Divine judgment is divine righteousness. The purpose of God punishing the wicked by "casting them out", "casting them into the outter darkness", casting them "into the Lake of Fire, is to "cast out evil" as the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God for this will be a holy, righteous people (one of the reasons the Bible states punishment is used).

This is one reason punishing Christ instead of us does not work (it perverts the biblical reason for punishment, and God's righteousness).

 

[DaveXR650]

Since I believe divine justice is divine righteousness, punishment is to bring about righteousness.

I agree that punishment is to bring about conformity to the righteousness of God, and deterrence, example, correction, inducement to repentance are all legitimately involved. As also are the cases of God simply killing men as punishment, and promising such to those who disobey. Sometimes, apparently, punishment is the way to satisfy the justice of God.

Let me ask you this. Do you think that "wrath" is part of God's (and I'm going to use a human term) reaction to man's sin and do you think that that must be dealt with in some way. If so, how?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It has nothing to do with what you or I like. The fact is Isaiah 53:5 did not say God bruised Him.

"It pleased God to bruise Him"
The verse could have at least two meanings.
1. It pleased God for Him to bruise Jesus
2. It pleased God to bruise Him (referencing vs 3-9).

To decide which is correct - #1 (your view) or #2 (my view) we should look for other pasages as Scripture interprets Scripture.

If we do we will find out that #2 provides the answer to what is not specified in Isaiah 53 (exactly who is committing the "oppression").

Christ suffered the power of Satan.
He died under the powers of evil.
This was God's predetermined plan.

I think you probably realise that this is not very convincing, but I accept that it is the best you can do. The text says, 'It pleased God to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' So according to the word of God, who put the Lord Jesus to grief?
When Uriah the Hittite was killed, David was 50 miles or more away from the scene of the action, but God told David via the prophet Nathan, "YOU have killed Uraih the Hittite with the sword" (2 Samuel 12:9). He did not actually kill Uraiah, but it was his predetermined plan. In fairness to David, he did not add hypocrisy to his sin by pleading that he did not actually do the deed.

Why do you think God should get away with such hypocrisy?

 

[JonC]

As also are the cases of God simply killing men as punishment

You would need to give an example. But keep in mind that we are talking about the "final judgment". I think we all know that in this life if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes.

Let me ask you this. Do you think that "wrath" is part of God's (and I'm going to use a human term) reaction to man's sin and do you think that that must be dealt with in some way. If so, how?

I believe that wrath is the due punishment for wickedness. I am not sure we can leave it as human wrath (a driving emotion). But God's wrath is upon the wicked.

I believe that the wrath that the wicked are storing up is for the day of wrath. The wicked will not enter the kingdom of God but instead will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

If you are talking about man's sins, say a Christian steals money from his employer, I do not believe that the resulting punishment, while from God, is wrath. I see that as correction.

 

[JonC]

I think you probably realise that this is not very convincing, but I accept that it is the best you can do. The text says, 'It pleased God to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.' So according to the word of God, who put the Lord Jesus to grief?

You made a mistake. I am not here to convince you.

The text says "But the Lord desired
To crush Him, causing Him grief;
If He renders Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand."

Isaiah 53 does not identify who put Him to grief. It is written from the standpoint of an observer.

It states that to "crush" Him was God's will (God's desire) as it brings about the second part of the verse. Isaiah 53 gives a hint at the who is that it was "oppression" (unjust, prolonged exercise of power).

I agree some could read verse 10 as if it were God doing the "crushing", and if they were not fluent with English they could think it necessitated that meaning. Or maybe if they read carelessly instead of studying Scripture in a serious way. They could have easily missed that this "crushing" was referred to as unjust.

But if one saw it as God "crushing" Jesus they would have to acknowledge that God was doing so unjustly because of the previous verses (the punishment is described as "oppression")


So we go to Scripture for the answer. There we learn it was the power of evil, wicked men, evil doers, but by the predetermined plan of God.


The issue is when one reads Isaiah 53:10 without reading Isaiah 53, determines one out if several possible meanings, and dismisses a host of other passages to cling to their idea.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, because that would be insufficient as a definition.

Retribution can be positive or negative. If you are rewarded for your actions thst is retribution. Theologically retribution is the distribution of rewards and punishment based on one's deeds.

If I employ, say, a builder to repair my house, my payment to him would be recompense for his work. I have never heard of such a payment being called 'retribution.' In my understanding 'recompense' can be positive or negative; retribution only negative.

So recompensing sinners in a way appropriate to their crime would be retribution... which is what I think you were getting at. But it would not make divine justice retribution justice.

This is very interesting.
Jeremiah 51:56. '....The plunderer comes against ... Babylon, and her mighty men are taken. Every one of her bows is broken. For the LORD is the God of recompense, He will surely repay.'
Isaiah 34:8. 'For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, the year of recompense for the cause of Zion.'
Isaiah 35:4. 'Behold, your God will come with vengeance, with the recompense of God; He will come and save you.'
See also Isaiah 59:18; Romans 11:9. In each of these five verses, The NIV translates 'recompense' as 'retribution.'

Is God therefore unjust?

Punishment (or retribution) does not satisfy divine justice.

According to the verses above it seems to.

Rewards for our deeds (or retribution) does not satisfy divine judgment.

Divine judgment is divine righteousness. The purpose of God punishing the wicked by "casting them out", "casting them into the outter darkness", casting them "into the Lake of Fire, is to "cast out evil" as the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God for this will be a holy, righteous people (one of the reasons the Bible states punishment is used).

Yet in Joel, and elsewhere, the whole purpose of God punishing Israel is to get the nation to repent (Joel 2:12ff). In Amos, the final retribution that came upon the Northern kingdom was the result of the neglect of God's remedial judgments (e.g. Amos 4:6-13).

This is one reason punishing Christ instead of us does not work (it perverts the biblical reason for punishment, and God's righteousness).

Christ being set forth as a propitiation is precisely so that God can be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus (Romans 3:25-26).

 

[DaveXR650]

I believe that wrath is the due punishment for wickedness. I am not sure we can leave it as human wrath (a driving emotion). But God's wrath is upon the wicked.

I believe that the wrath that the wicked are storing up is for the day of wrath. The wicked will not enter the kingdom of God but instead will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

If you are talking about man's sins, say a Christian steals money from his employer, I do not believe that the resulting punishment, while from God, is wrath. I see that as correction.

Well, what I was getting at is this. "He I say, has offered an acceptable sacrifice, a sweet smelling savor of eternal worth, wherewith he appeases the Father's wrath, makes atonement for the race of men,..." and so on. Isn't this showing that there was indeed "wrath" that must be appeased, even in the case of those who would indeed later repent. In other words, the reason the wrath of God, which I think is the final satisfaction of God's just attitude towards sin, is not falling upon all of us is not that we repent - but that before that atonement was made and Jesus appeased the Father's wrath by his death. This I think, describes penal substitution.

The quote is from Menno Simons in his work "Foundations of Christian Doctrine". I tried to avoid Calvinists as I am aware of your animosity towards them.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You made a mistake. I am not here to convince you.

The text says "But the Lord desired
To crush Him, causing Him grief;
If He renders Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand."

I didn't make a mistake. I quoted the NKJV. The NASB says the same thing. 'The LORD was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief.'
You have not even quoted the ESV 2001 correctly, but let that pass for the moment.
We agree that the Lord desired to crush the Lord Jesus. Psalm 115:3 tells us that God does whatever pleases Him. Acts 4:27-28. 'For truly against Your Holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel [no mention at all of Satan] were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined to be done.'
So I will repeat what I posted earlier (post #68) and hope that you will answer it.

When Uriah the Hittite was killed, David was 50 miles or more away from the scene of the action, but God told David via the prophet Nathan, "YOU have killed Uraih the Hittite with the sword" (2 Samuel 12:9). He did not actually kill Uraiah, but it was his predetermined plan. In fairness to David, he did not add hypocrisy to his sin by pleading that he did not actually do the deed.

Why do you think God should get away with such hypocrisy?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The quote is from Menno Simons in his work "Foundations of Christian Doctrine".

I am not aware of any Mennonite churches in Britain. I know a lady who has married a Canadian and attends with him a large Mennonite church about 45 miles east of Vancouver. She and her husband tell me that the church upholds Penal Substitution.

 

[JonC]

If I employ, say, a builder to repair my house, my payment to him would be recompense for his work. I have never heard of such a payment being called 'retribution.' In my understanding 'recompense' can be positive or negative; retribution only negative.

This is very interesting.
Jeremiah 51:56. '....The plunderer comes against ... Babylon, and her mighty men are taken. Every one of her bows is broken. For the LORD is the God of recompense, He will surely repay.'
Isaiah 34:8. 'For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, the year of recompense for the cause of Zion.'
Isaiah 35:4. 'Behold, your God will come with vengeance, with the recompense of God; He will come and save you.'
See also Isaiah 59:18; Romans 11:9. In each of these five verses, The NIV translates 'recompense' as 'retribution.'

Is God therefore unjust?

According to the verses above it seems to.

Yet in Joel, and elsewhere, the whole purpose of God punishing Israel is to get the nation to repent (Joel 2:12ff). In Amos, the final retribution that came upon the Northern kingdom was the result of the neglect of God's remedial judgments (e.g. Amos 4:6-13).

Christ being set forth as a propitiation is precisely so that God can be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus (Romans 3:25-26).

No, God is not unjust. He did not cause Christ's "oppression", He dies not punish the Just, and He does not clear the guilty.

I also view it as only negative. But in the end our understanding does not matter. Words actually have meaning.

Retribution - the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment (Webster's Dictionary)

Retribution - repayment; return accommodated to the action; reward; compensation. (Dictionary of the English Language)


Ah... here you go, @Martin Marprelate

Reading Collins Dictionary it could be reward or punishment but this is an archaic meaning.

Up until the 17th century retribution was a neutral form of "recompense", meaning reward or punishment.

From the 19th century until present it is most often used as punishment due to the establishment of formal philosophies of justice (retributive justice).



You misquote and misuse Scripture (I am sure accidentally).

God set forth His Son as a Propitiation in His blood to be received by faith.

BUT God passed over the sins committed until this time (until the New Covenant) so He would be just and the justifier of those who believe in Christ. The context of the passage is not propitiation but why God passed over those sins committed prior to the Promise.

All of thos does not negate the fact that punishment does not biblically satisfy justice. Punishment is a means that leads to justice, but only a person being made righteous or the wicked being removed satisfies justice.

 

[JonC]

Well, what I was getting at is this. "He I say, has offered an acceptable sacrifice, a sweet smelling savor of eternal worth, wherewith he appeases the Father's wrath, makes atonement for the race of men,..." and so on. Isn't this showing that there was indeed "wrath" that must be appeased, even in the case of those who would indeed later repent. In other words, the reason the wrath of God, which I think is the final satisfaction of God's just attitude towards sin, is not falling upon all of us is not that we repent - but that before that atonement was made and Jesus appeased the Father's wrath by his death. This I think, describes penal substitution.

The quote is from Menno Simons in his work "Foundations of Christian Doctrine". I tried to avoid Calvinists as I am aware of your animosity towards them.

Lol..... maybe the bold part in your snippet could be taken for Penal Substitution Theory, but not in context of the chapter.

Although I like Menno Simons I disagree with him in several areas. Same with Owen, Wesley, and Calvin. My favorite is Spurgeon. But I am also partial to Tim Keller and John Piper as well.

So if you want to avoid using Owen and want to appeal to my other likes, go with Spurgeon or Keller (Piper would be my 3rd choice to read).

I do not disagree with Simons on the quote you provided. I am surprised you agree with Simons.

It is Christ's righteousness (the obedience, the "sweet-smelling savor of eternal worth" that appeased God's wrath against us. "Yes, with this one sacrifice He has perfected forever those who are sanctified. This neither emperor nor king, doctor nor master, angel nor devil, may oppose. His Word stands fast and immovable. With one sacrifice, I say, with one sacrifice He has perfected forever those who are sanctified."

That is what I have been saying. Punishment does not satisfy justice. Only righteousness satisfies justice. We satisfy justice through Christ as He perfects us. We are made new creations, conformed into His image.


Now, I realize that you probably just looked up "Simons" and "wrath", thinking the snippet you quoted was Penal Substitution Theory. But if you read the context you would find you are assuming that "appeasing wrath" means God punished Jesus. The TRUTH, however, is more interesting. God is appeased by Christ's obedience, by Christ's eternal worth and offeting Himself. And wrath is turned from us as we are perfected in Him.

And, obviously, this chapter os not even about atonement. It is about a perverse observant of the Lord's Supper (Catholic).


Anyway, why do you go to Simons instead of Owen? If you are going to abandon God's Word for the opinions of men then stick with your favorites. Simons is good, if you want to follow him. But Owen was just as good. I think you'd fit in better with Owen.

As for me, I simply choose God's words. I figure if Calvin can make you guys stand, surely God can make me stand.

 

[DaveXR650]

It is Christ's righteousness (the obedience, the "sweet-smelling savor of eternal worth" that appeased God's wrath against us. "Yes, with this one sacrifice He has perfected forever those who are sanctified. This neither emperor nor king, doctor nor master, angel nor devil, may oppose. His Word stands fast and immovable. With one sacrifice, I say, with one sacrifice He has perfected forever those who are sanctified."

The point I was making was that we are talking about the atonement which involves Christ's death. Of course Christ was righteous, even sinless, or else the sacrifice would not have satisfied God's wrath. But we are talking about a sacrifice - offering a righteous, exemplary life, if it were sufficient would not have involved a violent, bloody death. You would have a point if we weren't talking about a crucifixion.

I do not disagree with Simons on the quote you provided. I am surprised you agree with Simons.

I was in a Missionary Church for 10 years. They were a spin off from the Mennonites.

But if you read the context you would find you are assuming that "appeasing wrath" means God punished Jesus. The TRUTH, however, is more interesting. God is appeased by Christ's obedience, by Christ's eternal worth and offeting Himself. And wrath is turned from us as we are perfected in Him.

See. We're finally getting to the point. And this is the real question. I agree that God was pleased with Christ's obedience. And I believe Christ had an eternal worth and that he offered himself. But the connection between his death on the cross and the removal of the wrath upon us cannot be minimized as you are trying to do. The statement that the wrath is turned from us as we are perfected in Him I won't argue with - but what I do think is that you, like all who do this, are deliberately trying to minimize the actual necessity of the death of Christ as truly accomplishing anything. In Romans 12:1 we are told to present our bodies a living sacrifice. Christ though, did not do that. Once anyone realizes that Christ's death is necessary, they will inevitably move towards some type of satisfaction as well as substitutionary atonement. And I believe like Dr. Craig does, that there is no reason not to go ahead and call it punishment that Christ took instead of us. The only question is did his death in the manner that it occurred do anything, or was it really his perfection, perfect obedience, showing of love that accomplished our redemption. And don't misunderstand me (of course you won't) those other things are true. But was the death, and death in that manner, essential in itself - not as a fulfillment of prophesy (which it was), not as an example of obedience (it was that too) but was there no other way in God's acting righteously (divine justice as you have said) for this to be accomplished.

 

[JonC]

The point I was making was that we are talking about the atonement which involves Christ's death. Of course Christ was righteous, even sinless, or else the sacrifice would not have satisfied God's wrath. But we are talking about a sacrifice - offering a righteous, exemplary life, if it were sufficient would not have involved a violent, bloody death. You would have a point if we weren't talking about a crucifixion.

I am not sure where you read that Jesus' life - the Incarnation without the crucifixion - was sufficient. Is that a form of Moral Influence? I do not hold that theory (Moral Influence or any theory that holds anything but the blood of Christ paid). I almost asked for the theory so I could be aware of it, but changed my mind. I do not want to know.

I believe that it is because Christ is righteous that He could offer Himself as an offering and through His death being so eternally unjust give us life.

Christ died unjustly (by biblical definition) as He was innocent. This is the first issue as "it is appointed man once to die". But the second part is "and then the judgment". God vindicated Christ against that evil (that unjust punishment) by raising Him to the glory He held prior to coming in the likeness of sinful flesh. The Second Adam became a life giving Spirit, imparting life to those who believe. Although we die yet shall we live. Death looses its sting. The one who holds the power of death is defeated. We will be made in His image, in the image of the Firstborn.

I am actually talking about the crucifixion. This was an act of evil (per Scriptite) although also God's predetermined plan.

If Christ were not guilty His death would not be unjust.

And there are too many passages that describe Christ's death as an act of evil (Acts, Psalms).

Even Isaiah 53 calls Jesus' suffering and death "oppression", which is "an exercise of unjust power to harm".

 

[DaveXR650]

I believe that it is because Christ is righteous that He could offer Himself as an offering and through His death being so eternally unjust give us life.

So are you saying that it is true that something called "injustice" can be stored up in such a way that we can unite with Christ at some point later and use some of this injustice as it is applied to us to give life? Yet stored up wrath cannot be actually due us as a just result of our sin, which Jesus, by bearing our sin in his own body was able to atone for on the cross?

Christ died unjustly (by biblical definition) as He was innocent. This is the first issue as "it is appointed man once to die". But the second part is "and then the judgment". God vindicated Christ against that evil (that unjust punishment) by raising Him to the glory He held prior to coming in the likeness of sinful flesh. The Second Adam became a life giving Spirit, imparting life to those who believe. Although we die yet shall we live. Death looses its sting. The one who holds the power of death is defeated. We will be made in His image, in the image of the Firstborn.

This is all true. The only thing lacking is anything about propitiation, bearing our sin, remission of sin by the shedding of blood and so on. So it's still incomplete. Not false, unless it is being put forth as a total explanation of the atonement. In that case it can be a mistake, an error, or a deliberate heresy for deceptive purposes.

And there are too many passages that describe Christ's death as an act of evil (Acts, Psalms).

Of course it was. God used it for good. Just like Joseph's brothers meant what they did for evil.

If Christ were not guilty His death would not be unjust.

????????????

 

[JonC]

So are you saying that it is true that something called "injustice" can be stored up in such a way that we can unite with Christ at some point later and use some of this injustice as it is applied to us to give life? Yet stored up wrath cannot be actually due us as a just result of our sin, which Jesus, by bearing our sin in his own body was able to atone for on the cross?

This is all true. The only thing lacking is anything about propitiation, bearing our sin, remission of sin by the shedding of blood and so on. So it's still incomplete. Not false, unless it is being put forth as a total explanation of the atonement. In that case it can be a mistake, an error, or a deliberate heresy for deceptive purposes.

Of course it was. God used it for good. Just like Joseph's brothers meant what they did for evil.

????????????

Jesus IS the propitiation. That is what I think you are missing. In Him we escape the wrath to come. "He Himself is the Propitiation". God set Him forth as a Propitiation.

This is THE total picture of the Atonement.

It is not God punishing the Just to clear the guilty.

It is Christ being made sin, made flesh, made like us, sharing our infirmity, coming in the likeness of sinful flesh, becoming a curse for us, sharing our humanity, dying the death all will die but as oppression as a wage, being raised to life, glorified, becoming a life giving spirit, imparting life to us so that although we die yet shall we live, God making is a new creation in Him, conforming is to His image, giving us a new heart, removing our guilty heart, making is righteous, glorifying us in Him. I have been discussing the Propitiation this whole time. This IS Christ Himself.

I agree that God used Christ's death for good. My point is we cannot allow our ideas to say what God does not.

The Bible offers Christ's death as God ordained (God's will, God's predetermined plan). But never attributes Christ's death to God.

The Bible refers to Christ's death as unjust, as oppression, as a judgment (qualified as erroneous in the verses before), as evil, as occurring by powers of evil, as the power of the devil. But never as just. Never as an act of God.