Some time ago I had the responsibility to teach a couple of lessons on the Atonement. Considering the central nature of this topic in our doctrine and the mystery that’s always been associated with it in my mind, I attempted to resolve some of the mystery through study and prayer. The result was a great deal more insight. I don’t know if anyone else would think so, but to me this insight helps me appreciate the Atonement much more deeply.
While I believe the points made in this discourse are consistent with scripture and other prophetic teachings, I’ve never heard the Atonement explained in this way. Because of this I’m uncertain if it has sufficient scriptural basis to teach, but for me I know there’s truth in it.
First let’s consider the concept of “justice.” Here’s a definition that seems to fit the concept I’m trying to analyze.
The rendering to every one his due or right; just treatment; requital of desert; merited reward or punishment; that which is due to one's conduct or motives. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Consider 2 people, Joe and Sam. Joe gets angry one day, drives over to Sam’s house and throws a rock through a window. Some time later Joe cools down, decides he made a mistake. Is there some ways that justice can be achieved for this indiscretion?
Here are some results of Joe’s offense:
• Sam is angry at Joe or otherwise feels wronged
• Joe feels guilty
• Window is broken
Joe meets with Sam and sincerely apologies. He repairs the window and takes Sam out to dinner. It seems conceivable that after some set of actions take place, both Joe and Sam feel that justice is served for this type of offense.
After the apology and supporting efforts:
• Sam is no longer angry
• Joe feels that he’s made up for his mistake
• Window is fixed
Now let’s consider how things might change if the offense is a little bigger. How about if Joe’s rock as it comes through the window hits Sam in the head and puts out an eye permanently.
In this case is there a way for Joe and Sam to both feel that justice has been served. Joe may apologize but Sam can’t get his eye back regardless of what Joe does.
At this point it may be appropriate for Sam to call the police and get a judge involved. The judge decides whether a crime has been committed and what the appropriate punishment should be.
Unfortunately this system of criminal justice has some challenges. Here are some of them:
• Judges aren’t perfect and may be too lenient or too harsh depending on their own experiences in life.
• The choice of punishments available won’t bring Sam’s eye back.
• True justice is satisfied when the parties to the crime say it is, not when the judge says it is.
How can justice be satisfied under these conditions?
Imagine if we had a judge that could fully understand both the victim and the perpetrator of the offense.
Scripture affirms that Jesus suffered the pains of all men. He fully understands the pain and guilt from both sides of the fence.
2nd Nephi 9:21 And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam.
Could there be a more perfect judge?
Consider how Jesus might respond to our scenario. What must Joe do to be free of the guilt associated with his offense? He must do everything he can:
• apologize sincerely
• restore everything he can
• never do it again
• forgive all those who offend him
• change his life to be in accordance with Christ’s teachings
For Joe to be free of guilt he must have confidence that Jesus will exact an appropriate punishment and no more. If Joe meets the requirements, his guilt can be eliminated based on his faith in Jesus Christ.
Because Jesus can fully appreciate the pain Sam is going through due to Joe’s offense, Sam can have confidence that Jesus won’t let Joe off the hook without requiring suitable restitution. Sam can therefore forgive and forget with confidence based on his faith in Jesus Christ, eliminating the anger part of the equation.
Consider the following additional points:
• Each of us makes many mistakes where full restitution is not possible. For example, even an unkind word can affect many people in a short period of time. As imperfect parents we won’t bring up perfect children.
• None of us are fully accountable for our actions because they are based on some factors beyond our control (e.g., how we were raised or ignorance).
• We obviously agreed to this arrangement before birth.
Considering this, wouldn’t justice be served as far as Joe and Sam is concerned.
A very common teaching related to the Atonement is that some law exists that allows someone to pay for someone else’s sins. This doesn’t feel like justice to me. Justice is served when all parties to the offense agree it is. It doesn’t make any sense for any party to agree that someone else’s suffering made everything OK, only that the someone else could be an effective judge.
In the discussion, it wasn’t necessary for Christ to suffer for each person’s sins independently, but to fully experience the depths of the effects of sin. To be the perfect judge He would need to have effectively walked in the shoes of all men. He would also need to have been sinless or He’d be blinded to some of the effects of sin.
Some may say this is false doctrine. Perhaps, but I don’t think so. The Atonement is central to our religion and it’s commonly believed that justice and mercy are tied up in it somehow. To have complete faith in God requires we believe He’s just.
To me, the atonement is an amazing illustration of justice. It helps me to understand how true justice is possible only through the Atonement and helps me more fully appreciate the love of Jesus Christ and His willingness to provide a way for our redemption.