Been prayerfully considering the unfairness of Jesus’s crucifixion, especially in regard to God’s ability to hold in perfect tension perfect justice and perfect mercy per that Crux in historical events. Because it is wholly unfair that the most perfect, blameless, loving, kind, wise, and only good man to ever walk the earth should have endured our rejection, persecution, reviling, and torture unto death. Let alone that He would bear the consequences due US all per such a course.
Going further back, though, perhaps illumination begins to arise in remembering that the unfairness did not initiate at His public trial unto execution. Unfairness unto Him began at His being humbled as to come in the flesh. That God would set aside anything of His glory and majesty for any span, humbling Himself, as to walk alongside us...there’s nothing small of unfairness of stance in His having taken the form of a servant. And also in His long-suffering toward us all, still, of and in mercy. He opted to do things which were very unfair to Him.
Fairness and justice aren’t necessarily equatable terms, it has begun to seem.
I heard someone discuss fairness in terms of equality, once, where it regards the demands of children to receive entirely equal treatment from parents. But there’s a big difference between allowing a 16 year old to use a vehicle and permitting same of a 12 year old. Standards of maturity and aptitude prevail when making such distinctions—some of which exist as standards of law, yes.
But the 12 year old could still as easily call it unfair, as a perceived unfairness in treatment that is “ageist.” Doesn’t mean it’s unjust, though. Doesn’t mean there ought to be amendments to law to approach greater “fairness.” But rather such instances evidence the standard of justice doesn’t rest in wholly equal treatment of all parties concerned. Justice to varied extents considers aptitude and comprehension, intent and ability—again, justice is not merely concerned with sameness of apparent treatment of parties. Justice doesn’t necessarily entail equal division of culpability or consequence. But justice appropriates matters rightly, with consideration of all involved factors. We wouldn’t have use for judges of the law, if consideration of events, intent, and ability were exempt from legal considerations.
So why then wouldn’t it be just (though admittedly unfair) for an aggrieved party to opt to endure consequences due the guilty party, so to enact a caveat that those who choose reconciliation would be granted pardon per having their offenses reckoned amongst an infinite debt satisfied per a likewise infinitely valuable propitiation. Seeking reconciliation rather than punishment of the offender. With all who would humble themselves to reckon with their culpability and the actual cost of satisfying the consequences. All who are remorseful and repentant. The Judge has mercy.
God Himself is the aggrieved party. If He has chosen to endure unfairness while enacting justice, as the aggrieved party and the only just judge, He has prevailing prerogative. And He provisioned means for mercy, at His own expense. Willingly enduring. Satisfying our debt, Himself. Jesus endured, for the sake of the joy set before Him.
He alone truly knows justice. We usually opt for seeking perceived fairness, instead. And there has been recent shift toward seeking public acclaim by vociferously decrying perceived unfairness toward any-other-party-than-self. Unless one’s own perceived rights are seen as having been infringed so often as that ongoing victimhood then is also perceived as a justification for being offended. So the idea of someone willingly surrendering their rights for the sake of another and enduring suffering for the sake of another...is that much more incomprehensible and offensive. All the more does it fly in the face of modern ideals of self-righteousness and public crusades for individual equality (without regard to standards of right or wrong, only of perceived entitlements to “fairness”).
This especially is a point of convolution when it comes to the idea of self-righteous crusades for one’s own (or others’ own) “rights.” Because if God, Himself, has humbled Himself for the sake of others rather that seeking His own esteem while walking amongst us, He has entirely put all rebel powers to shame by making apparent that we are wholly unjustified in seeking to exalt our own or others rights as being entitlements. The only one who truly IS entitled to seek His rights amongst us all did not do so, this we are truly relieved of any right to do so apart from submission to His pre-eminent will and sovereign provisions to us all.
Which again flies utterly in the face of modern (not new) ideology. It isn’t just to seek individual rights apart from submission to God. It is not fair to insist upon personal preference, in context of all reality, either.
No comments:
Post a Comment