Exploring parallels between the differing views on hell and the atonement theories.

For most of my life I held to the belief that hell was a place of eternal conscious torment, in addition to this I believed that Christ died on the cross to appease His Fathers wrath, thus redirecting God’s anger toward the innocent Lamb that was stricken in my place. For thirty years the idea of hell as a place of eternal conscious torment (which I will refer to as traditionalism or the traditional view from here on) and Christ’s atoning work on the cross being viewed as a substitutionary act of appeasement satisfaction (or Penal Substitution in theological jargon) were simply the only views I had ever been exposed to. When I was eventually exposed to alternate ideas about the afterlife such as Universalism and Conditional Immortality as well as alternate theories of the atonement, I became persuaded by scripture that there were more biblical sound options out there than those I had always held to before.

Conditional immortality (which is where I landed) basically says that only those who are in Christ will inherit eternal life while those who have rejected Him will be cast from His presence and suffer a second, final and eternally lasting death. Similarly, I began to understand the cross more in the sense of a spiritual battle between the Father, Son and Spirit against sin, death and Satan. The atonement was no longer about Gods need to satisfy His wrath or a means to finding a balance between His need for retributive justice and love but rather, the atonement was about the godhead's victory over the powers of darkness (theologians call this view Christus Victor).

While I have already written quite a lot about hell as well as atonement theories in the past (and I will put a list of links to those articles at the end of this post for those who want to dig deeper), I have never explored the relational links between the traditional view of hell and Penal Substitution as opposed to those I now hold to of Conditional Immortality and Christus Victor. I should add that not everyone who believes in Conditional Immortality necessarily believes in Christus Victor and likewise, not everyone who believes that hell is a place of eternal conscious torment believes in Penal Substitutionary theory. Nevertheless, I will lay out a few thoughts below as to why I think that Christus Victor and Conditional immortality compliment one other and together give us the best interpretation of scripture; simultaneously I will mention some of what I believe to be the shared problems between traditionalism and penal substitution.      

1 - Traditionalism and penal substitution both downplay death.

The traditional view of hell tells us that the wicked will not perish but that the wages of sin will be eternal conscious torment. Although the word ‘death’ still gets thrown around by adherents, it has being completely redefined. Death to traditionalists does not mean the permanent ending of life but rather gets reinterpreted as an ‘eternal conscious separation from God’ or as having to endure ‘immortality in hell’.
   Similarly, penal substitution emphasizes the suffering of Christ on the cross as a payment made to God on our behalf. The death of Christ is hardly significant or even necessary within this theological framework. Penal substitution says that on the cross God placed all the sin of the world onto Jesus and when the Fathers wrath had been fully poured out on Him the separation within the Trinity was once again restored. This is why Jesus says “Father, why have you forsaken me?” but soon afterward can say, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit’ and then “It is finished”. Under this interpretation the only reason Jesus died and rose again would be as a confirmation of God’s acceptance of His sacrifice.      

But even if penal substitutionists disagree with me there is still another problem. If they do indeed say that it was Christ’s death that satisfied God’s wrath then why do we all still die as Christ did? How was His physical death equal to God torturing billions of souls in hellfire for all eternity? Why was His substitutionary sacrifice not eternal conscious torment instead? There are no satisfactory arguments against these questions, yet I believe that Christus Victor deals with these problems, the immortal God comes as a mortal man that He could defeat death through death. Yes, He took our sin upon Himself and suffered the consequences of it (which is death) but by His resurrection He defeated death and made a way for us, not to escape death, but to overcome it in Christ:-

When the perishable has been clothed with imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory’.” – 1 Corinthians 15:54

“Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me  will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die’.” – John 11:25

“He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death.” – Revelation 2:11

And they have defeated him by the blood of the Lamb and by their testimony. And they did not love their lives so much that they were afraid to die. – Revelation 12:11

Conditional Immortality and Christus Victor are about restoration, Traditionalism and penal substitution are about holy violence.

I read a statement on a discussion in a Facebook group that really caught my attention a few days ago, it simply said, “I struggle to see how death is both an enemy AND God’s punishment”. It was a fantastic observation that was being made because it highlights another area where conditional immortality and Christus Victor stand in contrast to traditionalism and penal substitution. Traditionalism sees death (defined as eternal conscious torment) as a punishment dished out at the hands of God. Hell is viewed as a place where God sends people and keeps them alive under the ghastliest, most macabre and violent conditions imaginable. It is an utterly hopeless predicament as this form of justice is purely retributive. Really it is a no win situation for anyone, not even for God because His wrath remains unsatisfied forever and ever and so the lashes and torment must continue forever and ever.
   Likewise, penal substitution says that God poured out His own wrath on His own Son, anyone who has ever watched the Passion of the Christ movie before has some idea of just how violent Christ’s death actually was. While the Bible explicitly speaks of death as an enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26) and a tool of Satan (Hebrews 2:14, John 10:10), it bewilders me that it has somehow become associated with God in two of the major doctrines in the evangelical church of today.

Whereas violence and death are central to traditionalism and penal substitution, restoration and life are central to the teachings of conditional immortality (one of the reasons I prefer the term over annihilationism) and Christus Victor. While there are conditionalists who believe that God annihilates the wicked, others (including myself) believe that death is not God’s punishment but the natural conclusion of life outside of Christ (Romans 6:23). God never said to Adam that if he ate the forbidden fruit He would kill him, rather, He warned Adam of certain death in rejecting the tree of life and trying to go it alone (If you eat of the fruit you will surely die - Genesis 2:17). Conditional immortality is about God making a way in Christ for us to find life. It’s about restoration and eternal life through the cross to all those who believe in Jesus (John 3:36). This fits well inside the Christus Victor framework which likewise is about restoration. Christ’s victory over His enemies (death, sin, Satan and those who followed after him) means that one day everything will be restored or renewed, everything will be ‘very good indeed’ as it was in the Garden of Eden. When only that which is subject to Christ’s reign and rule remains, then He will truly be ‘all in all’.

Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free, but Christ is all, and in all. - Colossians 3:11

Traditionalism and penal substitution are about constraint whereas conditional immortality and Christus Victor deal with annihilation.

In the traditional framework of hell evil is never ending, God’s creation is never restored to its original state but rather, is split into two sections. Firstly, we have heaven and/or a new earth where God’s will is done and creation is good, this is the Kingdom of never ending peace. Then we have hell, where everything outside of God is imprisoned, it’s a little like the old movie Demolition Man, with Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes, where you have this perfect, non-violent society that has been created while at the same time there is this not so perfect society coexisting underground. The movie, much like Dante’s idea of hell, only deals with evil in the sense that it drives it away or banishes it to the shadows.
   Similar to this we have penal substitution which seeks to constrain or redirect God’s wrath from you and me onto Jesus (and those who do not accept Him). One gets a picture of Jesus holding His Father back in restraint, saying, “No dad, this person is one of mine”! God’s wrath is not avoided through free forgiveness but only satisfied in its redirection or payment taken from another source.

Conditional immortality though, while not ignoring God’s wrath or the consequences of sin, promises a restoration of all things in Christ. Not in the sense that Universalism teaches (on an individual level) but in the sense that all of creation will be redeemed from the curse. Mankind (those who inherited eternal life) will be sanctified and glorified and we will be as He is. This is where conditional immortality and Christus Victor really overlap because creation itself will be redeemed from the curse as well (Romans 8:21-22) in the same sense that mankind is. Not every mosquito, tree or pet that ever lived will be raised again but the animal and plant kingdoms will be restored to their initial states of beauty. It’s not that there are no casualties along the way but Christ’s victory over death and the curse on nature will be total and complete in the end.

Conditional Immortality and Christus Victor paint a more Christ-like picture of God.

Sometimes it is hard to reconcile the violent imagery of the Old Testament (generally speaking) with the more loving, non violent imagery found in the New (generally speaking). It is hard to reconcile Jesus’ teachings of enemy love and non violence as well as His example of dying at the hands of his enemies for the benefit of His enemies with the idea of a God who tortures His enemies. Most Christians feel a personal repulsion at the idea of burning anyone alive but conclude that it is simply a mystery beyond understanding and that “Gods ways are not our ways”. The problem with quoting this verse found in Isaiah 55 though is that the context is about God’s mercy which is beyond that of ours and makes an argument for the exact opposite picture of God :-

Seek the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near, Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the LORD, and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts”. – Isaiah 55:6-9

Eternal conscious torment and penal substitution both portray God in a manner that does not look like Jesus. It is hard to imagine Jesus throwing stones at the woman caught in adultery or harboring unforgiveness toward others until someone had been killed. In contrast conditional immortality and Christus Victor do offer us a more Christlike picture of God. When one sees God warring not against flesh and blood but against principalities, rulers, authorities, powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces, we begin to see the cross and the final judgment as a victory against sin, Satan and death. We begin to see the Father as a God who has done everything outside of forcing someone against their will to be saved from their sins and death.
   When I read John 3:16, I see a loving Father’s rescue mission for a people who were headed toward destruction. Somehow, even though I had read it a million times before and it is written rather plainly, I used to read penal substitution and traditionalism into the text. I interpreted it as saying that, ‘God was so angry with those He loved that He had to punish His own Son, and whoever believes this would not suffer eternal burning with no hope of death but inherit eternity in paradise’. But now when I read it, I see Christ, victorious over death and the hope of eternal life for those who are bound to Him.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.    

Related articles

On Hell

3 views of hell
But only the cults teach annihilationism...

A list of scriptures supporting conditional immortality
Conditional vs universal immortality
Hell, thoughts on annihilationism

On the atonement

John 3:16 from the Sons perspective
Did God forsake Jesus on the cross?
Salvation from the perspective of a Kingdom centered gospel
Why we have gotten the meaning of the cross all wrong

John 3:16 from the Sons perspective

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life”. - John 3:16

It is probably the most widely known verse in the bible; most of us were familiar with it long before we were even capable of reading it for ourselves. So much of our evangelistic programs are built on and around it and for good enough reason. But have you ever read it from Jesus’ perspective? One could be excused for thinking that Jesus may have felt like He was getting the short end of the stick here but that line of reasoning would nevertheless be incorrect.

Modern Christianity is largely blinded to the depth of the love, the complete unity, the single mindedness, the exact likeness, the perichoresis and the shared attributes within the Godhead. I was reading through the book of John recently and when I came to the last verse of chapter 14 my heart just jumped. It reads:-

“But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do. Arise, let us go from here.”

The context here is chapters 14 through 17 and is sometimes referred to as ‘the Farewell Discourse’. Jesus is speaking to the disciples the evening before He will be crucified. A great deal of the content within the 4 chapters reveals the intimacy found within the Trinity and our glorious inheritance received in Him. “In my Fathers abode there are many dwellings…the Father dwells in Me…I in the Father and the Father in Me…and He will give you another Helper that He may abide in you forever…He dwells with you and will be in you…I will come to you…At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you…We will come to him and make our home in him…Abide in Me…He who abides in Me, and I in him bears much fruit…by this the Father is glorified…As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you, abide in my love” (snippets of chapter 14 and 15).

One should see immediately that Jesus was not talking about inheriting a 5-bedroom mansion up in the sky one day as is so commonly believed. What a pitifully diluted picture of heaven that is... But getting back to that last verse in chapter 14; I was suddenly struck when reading it that it so echoed the words of John 3:16 but from Jesus’ own perspective. What it says and reveals to us about Jesus is this:-

For the Son so loved the Father that He gave Himself, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life; found only in Him.

Short, sweet and amazingly beautiful.    

Did God forsake Jesus on the cross?

“My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” – Jesus (Matthew 27:46)

I have been having some interesting conversations around the purpose of Jesus death and resurrection of late. One thing that often raises eyebrows among friends is when they discover that I am skeptical of the idea that Jesus died on the cross to satisfy the Fathers wrath that was aimed at us. Certainly, He suffered on our behalf and in our place. But did He die to save us from the Father or was it to save us from something else? So I have now begun to make notes of any Bible verses that I find relating to why Jesus died on the cross and what His death and resurrection means for you and me. I have only just started and the list is already sitting at over 100 verses! I will post my findings here once they are a bit more complete and organized. But for now, I wanted to maybe write a few posts addressing the scriptures that often get used to validate the idea that Jesus went to the cross to appease the wrath of the Father, starting with the above mentioned quote from Matthew 27.

The interpretation of Matthew 27:46 presented by some says that when Jesus took on our sin and shame upon Himself (which did happen) the Father turned His back on Him. At the same time it is argued that He poured His wrath out on Him so that His anger might rescind against us. The argument as far as this particular verse goes rests on two points; the first being that Jesus almost always preferred saying ‘Father’ instead of ‘God’. So it is suggested by some that by calling God 'God' instead of Father on the cross, that the special connection shared between Father and Son had been broken and the godhead had suffered a temporary divide. The second point would be that the plain meaning of the words Jesus spoke seems to be present a pretty clear case that He was indeed forsaken.Or does it?

Starting with the first and weaker argument, it feels like I am pointing out the obvious when saying that the reason as to why Jesus used the word ‘God’ rather than ‘Father’ here is that He is quoting directly from the Old Testament. “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me” is the opening line of Psalm 22. So it makes sense then that Jesus would use ‘God’ rather than ‘Father’ if He is quoting from scripture which He clearly is. As to why He said it, one can only speculate; perhaps the reality of what was happening on the cross reminded Him of this Psalm or maybe He said to encourage those around Him (which will make sense later on). Maybe it was simply said to fulfill what David had written? Whatever the reason, the link between Psalm 22 and Matthew 27:46 is vital in our quest to answer our original question of whether or not the Son had been abandoned by His Father.

Psalm 22 is clearly Messianic, verses 7 and 8 (derided by His enemies) are fulfilled in Luke 23:35, verse 16 (hands and feet pierced) in John 20:27 and verse 18 (lots cast for His clothes) in Matthew 27:35, 36. It is after verse 18 though that it takes a turn from one of despair to hope and praise. It is verse 24 in particular that I want to highlight to you,

“For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; nor has He hidden His face from Him; but when He cried to Him, He heard”.

You can be sure that Jesus knew the rest of David’s Psalm, including verse 24, as would many of those around Him as well. In fact, to really drive this home, Jesus Himself, just before going to the Garden of Gethsemane, where He was arrested, told His disciples in John 16:32 that they would all soon leave Him but that He would not be forsaken by the Father! “Indeed the hour is coming, yes, and now has come, that you will all be scattered, each to his own, and will leave Me alone. And yet, I am not alone, because the Father is with Me.” How wonderful and amazing! This is why Paul can say that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). This is why Jesus could, just after quoting Psalm 22, with confidence quote from Psalm 31 and say “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit”.

The Father never forsook Him, not even for a moment, not a chance.

Why we have gotten the meaning of the cross all wrong

For quite some time a few things regarding the Western churches understanding of the cross has being bugging me. Some things just don't seem to add up. So I started looking into aspects of the atonement and soon discovered that what we were all taught in church/seminary was known as “Penal substitution”. Penal substitution theory (PST) refers to John Owens theory that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for God’s wrath to be poured out on sinners. The theory was picked up on by guys like John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards who greatly helped in advancing it. Basically, the theory says that at the cross, God imputed the guilt of our sins onto Christ, and Jesus, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserved. At the same time, Christ’s righteousness was then credited to us. This was a full payment for mankind’s sins in terms of its severity, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God. for a brief moment, God could not even look upon Christ as he bore our sins. The suffering that Christ endured was so that the Father could forgive us without compromising His own just standards. A sort of balancing of His mercy and justice if you will. This is the most common view of the purpose of the cross within the larger Evangelical circle today. Many are not even aware that alternate views exist. Even John Piper writes in the foreword of the book, Pierced for Our Transgressions, "For if God did not punish his son in my place, I am not saved from my greatest peril, the wrath of God".

This presentation of the cross surely sounds familiar to most people and maybe you are even nodding your head as you read along. Although there is some truth in the above theory, the more I have looked into it, the more I have realized that most of it is seriously in contradiction to a lot of what scripture teaches us about the cross, about the Father and about the Trinity.

 I have divided my thoughts up into three sections below. The first part are the scriptures that came to mind while the second part are the logical problems I could think of. The last part is a re looking into scriptures that are used to support PST. 

PS - Before posting this I quickly re read it and quickly realized that it does not flow very well as I wrote it in a point format. Please forgive my lousy writing skills. If the topic interests you, it is worth overlooking my lack of eloquence ...now, let’s get stuck in!

What’s wrong with Penal substitution?

Scriptural objections

Part of PST says that God cannot look upon sin, supporters of this view will often ignore the infinite scriptures of God dealing with and seeking out fallen humanity and then quote Jesus famous words, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”. To be honest, I am not really sure why Jesus uttered those words, but what I do know is that he was quoting from Psalm 22 which goes on to say in verse 24

…For He has not despised nor hated the affliction of the afflicted; and He has not hidden His face from him, but when he cried to Him, He heard.

Similarly, we see the Father not playing the role of the bad cop, but as being actively involved at the cross in helping His son.

Isaiah 50:6-9

I gave My back to the strikers, and My cheeks to pluckers; I did not hide My face from shame and spitting.

For the Lord Jehovah will help Me; therefore I have not been ashamed. On account of this I have set My face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.

He is near who justifies Me; who will contend with Me? Let us stand together; who is master of My judgment? Let him come near Me.

Behold, the Lord Jehovah will help Me; who is he who shall condemn Me? Lo, they all shall wear out like a garment; the moth shall eat them.

Interestingly, what we have put on God, scripture seems to reverse and lay on man. Isaiah in chapter 53:3-5 goes on to say…
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as it were a hiding of faces from Him, He being despised, and we esteemed Him not.
4 Surely He has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet WE ESTEEMED Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions; He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was on Him; and with His stripes we ourselves are healed.
Further evidence that the Father was helping, rather than punishing His son in 2 Corinthians 5:19.19 whereas God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and putting the word of reconciliation in us.
In harmony with the opening scriptures of Isaiah 53, we see in Luke 22:53 that the violence displayed at the cross was an act darkness, rather than light.

53 When I was with you in the temple daily, you did not stretch out your hand on Me. But this is your hour, and the authority of the darkness.

NB - I believe that the cross was not dealing with the Fathers dilemma of needing to exact some sort of revenge on humanity before being able to forgive us. But rather that He was dealing with the problems of sin, the devil, and ultimately death that had befallen us. As the verse below indicates, the cross did not make the wrath of God of no effect, but rather, the power of death.

10 But it is now having been manifested by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who has made death of no effect, bringing life and immortality to light through the gospel;

A similar statement is made in Rom. 6:9-10 knowing that when Christ was raised from the dead, He dies no more; death no longer has dominion over Him.

10 For in that He died, He died to sin once; but in that He lives, He lives to God. As I already stated, the godhead's victory was not only over death, but over the devil himself. 1 John 3:8 reads-

8 He who practices sin is of the Devil, for the Devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was revealed, that He might undo the works of the Devil.

Hebrews 2 is an important chapter in atonement theology and worth reading in it's entirety in your own time, for our purposes here though, verse 14  echoes 1 John 3:8 above nicely.

14 ¶ Since then the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise partook of the same; that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death (that is, the Devil),

Logical objections

1 - Does the problem of sin lie with an offended God or with broken man? In Christ’s death and resurrection, who was he “fixing”?

2 - Is it just to punish the innocent? I am astounded at how we can say because God is just he had to punish someone, even the one who knew no sin! Even Pilate did not want to be identified with such an injustice. Any human that would murder the innocent would greatly offend us. Yet we apply the same logic to God and call it "just and holy"?

3 - Can God not forgive freely? This is something God expects of us, it is part of the essence of love which “keeps no record of wrongs”. According to a retributive definition of justice, God indeed cannot freely forgive.

4 – PST claims that in order for God to satisfy his retributive  justice, Jesus had to endure the exact punishment that was due for all of humanity. Think about it, 1 man suffering, albeit terribly for 8 hours, weighed against the whole of humanity suffering in hell forever? That is maybe a 100 Billion people  burning in eternal fire…not to take away from Christ’s suffering. 
But if you had to choose one of the two tortures for yourself, which one would you go for?

5 – It has being stated by many that PST is a form of  “Cosmic child abuse”. A Father who delights in the suffering of His only begotten son at His own hands, this is a terrible way of viewing the cross. It is incredible how many atheists blog about this as one of the main reasons that they left Christianity (apart from the hypocrisy of many church folk).

6 – Most of our atonement thinking is rooted in our concept of justice. Biblical justice is restorative, not retributive. I have blogged previously n this so instead of elaborating as this post is already getting long, please look up the previous article on justice.

7 – PST throws God in with the pagan deities who required a sacrifice (preferably ones own son) in order to be appeased. Sacrifice is often associated with cleansing in scripture, it is not punishment, but rather an alternative to it.

8 – PST separates the trinity, and not just in the sense that the Father could not look on the son, but in that there are needs in the Father that are opposite to the son, one can't look on sin, the other is a called a friend of sinners, one seeks to punish, the other seeks to save.

9 – If the cross was indeed about satisfying the Fathers wrath, then Jesus failed. The bible has sooo much to say about Gods coming wrath, read the minor prophets, read Revelation. If you have E-sword just search “the day of the Lord” and see how many verses pop up. God’s wrath  and who or what it comes against is an interesting but separate topic which hopefully I can address here in future as well.

PST proof texts

Isaiah 53:10 - Yet it pleased the LORD to crush Him; to grieve Him; that He should put forth His soul as a guilt-offering. He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the will of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.

This verse is the one people will always bring up, but when pushed on it, no one will admit that they believe the Father took pleasure from the torture or murder of His son. Rather this scripture says to me that the Lord was pleased with the plan or outcome of Christs sacrifice. It is very interesting to note as well how the Septuagint translates this verse, keep in mind that this would be the translation as Jesus and the apostles would have read it.

53:10 - But the LORD  chose to crush him by disease, that, if he made himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and have long life; And that through him the LORD’s  purpose might prosper.

Heb 9:23 - And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Most people like to say “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin”. There are 3 things worth pointing out though.

1 - The first part of that sentence always get ignored, note that blood has a cleansing quality. This theme is strongly presented throughout scripture. We have been "cleansed" or "washed" by the blood of Christ. The Father does not have a blood lust...

2 - Although the Greek word "aphesis" can be translated as forgiveness, remission is far more fitting as translated above. What do you think of when someone says that someones cancer is in remission? This goes nicely with the theme of us being healed by his stripes. 

3 - Keeping with the idea of Christs blood bringing us healing as opposed to satisfying the Fathers blood lust. Hebrews 9:23 is made more clear by the preceding statement in verse 14.

"how much more shall the blood of Christ (who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God) cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

The verse below is another one that gets used sometimes. The same principles of blood mentioned above apply here as well. But something else people don't always know is that justice and righteousness come from the same word in the Greek, "dikaiosune". These words have very different meanings to those who fly the PST flag. Consider replacing the word "justice" or "justification" with "righteousness" or "right standing" and visa versa. They mean the same thing but modern translations like to ascribe the word that best suites their bias. I have inserted justice and righteousness in brackets below after the words as we read them. You can check this using E-sword as well. I hope it gives you a clearer understanding of Gods justice. It is NOT the opposite of His love, but part of it in a restorative sense.

Rom 3:21-26

21 But now a righteousness (the justice) of God has been revealed apart from Law, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets;
22 even the righteousness (justice) of God through the faith of Jesus Christ, toward all and upon all those who believe. For there is no difference,
23 for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,
24 being justified (made right) freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;
25 whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness (justice) through the passing by of the sins that had taken place before, in the forbearance of God;
26 for the display of His righteousness (justice) at this time, for Him to be just (righteous) and, forgiving the one being of the faith of Jesus.

I wanted to cover as much as possible here but still, I have only touched on a things without going deep into them. There is plenty of great resources to be found on the topic on the web and I would really recommend Brad Jersak's book" Stricken by God" for those seeking to dig deeper. 

:)