For God did not appoint us to wrath,
but to obtain salvation
through our Lord Jesus Christ.
First letter to the Thessalonians 5:9
The Governmental theory was proposed by Hugo Grotius165 in the 17th century. Like the theories that preceded it, this atonement theory was influenced by the legal context; in fact, Grotius was a jurist and philosopher, whose masterpiece De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace) of 1625, is considered one of the major contributions to the development of International Law and earned Grotius the nickname of “Father of International Law”. He was also a statesman and diplomat, which is why he tended to consider and interpret God's role as a moral governor of the universe, with all the attendant functions and attributes of a sovereign.
10.1. Governmental theory
According to this theory, which is a reinterpretation of the Penal Substitution, Jesus was crucified as our substitute, not to bring punishment for our sins (from a legal point of view, we have seen how transfer of punishment is not possible), but to show how serious the condition of sin is and how much God's wrath hangs over it. Jesus actually suffered in our place, not because our sin was imputed to him, but because he was sacrificed like the lamb described in the book of Exodus for Pesah (Easter), which literally means “pass over”; in fact, the blood of the lamb, shed on the lintel of the door, caused the Lord to “pass over”, sparing the homes of the Jews from the scourge that killed every first-born son of the Egyptians. Similarly, the blood of Jesus on the cross, like that of an unblemished lamb sacrificed for us, causes the Lord to “pass over” the sins of those who believe in Christ. This chastisement that struck Jesus, according to Grotius, should function as a stern warning to drive men to conversion and to lead a righteous life, by re-establishing the moral order of God's government, hence the name Governmental theory.
As the victim of offenses God has good reason to require punishment. As the governor of the moral universe, he has good reason to relax punishment. In fact, he does both. He requires a punishment less than the amount he is owed while sufficiently demonstrating how serious sin is and simultaneously setting an example to both deter sin and inspire righteousness. Thus, the cross was, from the perspective of a moral governor, the best overall solution to deal with sin.166
Christ received a demonstration of divine justice upon himself, with the aim of safeguarding God's righteous judgement and love for mankind, taking upon himself not our chastisement, but the same chastisement that we would deserve. The cross, an example of the horror of sin and a demonstration of the effects it has on mankind, sanctions God's decision to forgive gratuitously while showing all his contempt for sin. It would thus seem to be a fusion of Penal Substitution and Moral Influence theories, but here understood in the form of a severe warning:
God has, therefore, most weighty reasons for punishing, especially if we are permitted to estimate the magnitude and multitude of sins. But because among all his attributes love of the human race is pre-eminent, God was willing, though he could have justly punished the sins of all men with deserved and legitimate punishment, that is, with eternal death, and had reasons for so doing, to spare those who believe in Christ. But since we must be spared either by setting forth, or not setting forth, some examples against so many great sins, in his most perfect wisdom he chose that way by which he could manifest more of his attributes at once, viz. both clemency and severity, or his hate of sin and care for the preservation of his law.167
The theory was not very successful, except during the period of the Christian revivals168 and within the Methodist movement, initiated by the Anglican Pastor John Wesley169 and his brother Charles in the 18th century.
This movement deserves a brief discussion, because of the great influence it has had and is having on the Christian world. In fact, what took shape with Wesley was a fusion of objective theory (in its forms of satisfaction/substitution) and subjective theory (in the form of the emotional and spiritual feelings aroused by the cross), combined with a sort of social gospel, which gave rise to the Salvation Army:170
Wesley, too, takes for granted that the “objective” element in atonement – the taking away of sin and sins, and salvation from the law of sin and death – is inseparable from the “subjective” element – from the bodily and spiritual sensation. […] Personal feelings of doubt, depression, anxiety, inner unrest, and rootlessness are understood to be closely connected to a sense of sin and guilt before God. A deeply emotional and individual conversion experience takes place which removes the negative affect and replaces it with powerful feelings of joy and purpose.171
It is on these assumptions, that in many Christian contexts the idea that any spiritual experience must be accompanied by a strong emotional involvement to be considered effective has become widely accepted.
The wave of this movement initiated by Wesley gave rise to several events in Britain and the United States, that came to be known as Revivalism and the Great Awakening, characterised by fiery sermons on the impending wrath of God, by famous preachers such as George Whitefield172 and Jonathan Edwards:173
So that thus it is, that natural Men are held in the Hand of God over the Pit of Hell; they have deserved the fiery Pit, and are already sentenced to it; and God is dreadfully provoked, his Anger is as great towards them as to those that are actually suffering the Executions of the fierceness of his Wrath in Hell, and they have done nothing in the least to appease or abate that Anger, neither is God in the least bound by any Promise to hold 'em up one moment; the Devil is waiting for them, Hell is gaping for them, the Flames gather and flash about them, and would fain lay hold on them, and swallow them up.174
Sometimes the preaching was so convicting that “bodily effects” could be viewed among the crowd: persons crying out in the middle of a sermon under sharp pang of conscience, or individuals so overcome with terror that their trembled and lost their ability to sit up or stand. Samuel Blair noted extraordinary responses from his preaching in the summer of 1740: “Several would be overcome and fainting; others deeply sobbing, hardly able to contain, others crying in a most dolorous manner, many others more silently weeping.175
10.2. Criticism of the Governmental theory
The Governmental theory, according to the critics, contains all the limitations of the exemplarist theories, which have already been widely discussed, since in fact Jesus' punishment would function as an example of the punishment we deserve, and this should convince us of sin and induce to repentance. The merit of this theory, however, is that it removes the problem of injustice linked to the legal non-transferability of sin that characterises the Penal Substitution theory, while seeking a reconciliation between justice and forgiveness, wrath and God's love. Moreover, Grotius tried, with this theory, to overcome the laxity engendered by the theory of Penal Substitution, since it would demand of the believer a change of life oriented towards justice. However, the Governmental theory does not solve the moral problem of punishment falling on an innocent. Among other things, we seem to see in Grotius' idea the old Latin saying “Unum castigabis, centum emendabis” (you will chastise one, you will correct a hundred) that was taught to the Roman centurions to discipline the soldiers, and that has been sadly taken up also by some modern dictators, but that does not seem to do justice to the merciful God that Jesus showed us.
10.3. Conclusion
In Grotius's intentions, one senses the desire to show a compassionate God, able to forgive sin because of his infinite mercy, and on the other hand the idea of a God who is a just and inflexible Governor capable of prosecuting anything that subverts the established order, morality and civil coexistence. Perhaps Grotius' intention was also to overcome the limits of the theory of Penal Substitution since, as a good jurist, he understood the non-transferability of guilt. The fact remains that the punishment inflicted on Jesus would in this case be a mere demonstrative act of what is due to humanity, to induce men to repent and live righteously. It could be said that this is a negative exemplarist theory, since it is based on the fear of punishment, aimed at generating contrition and repentance. This approach was probably the ground on which the typical preaching of Revivals and Awakenings in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries took place. However, the idea of a threatening god is not compatible with much of the biblical narrative, in which it is always God who takes the initiative of reconciliation, even though this is often rejected by men. Grotius' intuition, despite its limitations, cannot, however, be branded as completely nonsensical; indeed, in Jesus on the cross we can see the devastating effects of sin, but it is much more reasonable to think that it is not God's wrath against men, but rather men's hatred towards God when he came among us. God is merciful.
Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” says the Lord, “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”