Jesus' death as payment of sins

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The Christian Church has struggled, for many years, with the meaning of Jesus's death.  Not too long ago I came across a Patheos article about the theological problems with commonly held belief that Jesus died as payment of sin.  It reinforced my own concerns with 'blood atonement' theology, even as it's been central to the faith of many Christians for ages.

Here are a few problems with the belief that Jesus died for our sins, rather than because of them:

• Jesus forgave sin a number of times in his life and never said that they would only be forgiven after his crucifixion.
• God blessed all nations and put an end to sacrifices in the Old Testament (see: story of Abraham and his son).
• Jesus taught that violence does not redeem.
• If God needed to sacrifice His own son in order to forgive people (which sounds pretty absurd to begin with), what happened to the people who lived and died before Jesus's time?  Were they told to just sit and wait?

Thoughts?

[Zioneer]

"The" Christian Church? There's plenty of them, you know.

Anyway, the LDS Church makes it a bit easier; those who died without any knowledge of the "restored gospel" (our faith) before and after Christ, and even in the present day (like a tribe in the Amazon), don't have to sit and wait. They get to be temporarily judged on their deeds and if they were a good person, they get to hang out with other righteous people, and be taught the Gospel. If they were not righteous, then they get taught anyway and presumably usually accept the Gospel anyway, but if they don't, they're not punished. Well, at least not until the final judgement anyway, but that's a different doctrine.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

"The" Christian Church? There's plenty of them, you know.

Anyway, the LDS Church makes it a bit easier; those who died without any knowledge of the "restored gospel" (our faith) before and after Christ, and even in the present day (like a tribe in the Amazon), don't have to sit and wait. They get to be temporarily judged on their deeds and if they were a good person, they get to hang out with other righteous people, and be taught the Gospel. If they were not righteous, then they get taught anyway and presumably usually accept the Gospel anyway, but if they don't, they're not punished. Well, at least not until the final judgement anyway, but that's a different doctrine.

When I say "Christian Church," I refer to the assemblage of all Christians, Catholic or Protestant.

Thanks for the insight on that.

[© tweed]

the only time I'd heard blood atonement used, prior to about a month ago, was as a dark moment in LDS history when Brigham Young argued that murder was so grave a sin that Jesus' blood didn't cover it, and the sinner-murderer would have to spill his own blood in sacrifice as ransom in order to be forgiven by God. 

Paul Washer, a least-favorite hardcore Calvinist-conservative American of mine, also used the two words in succession, and while I very much doubted he believed in this piece of 19th Century LDS theology, I couldn't figure out exactly what he meant by it.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I fixed the title so that it better reflects the subject matter.

[they don't love you like i love you]

the only time I'd heard blood atonement used, prior to about a month ago, was as a dark moment in LDS history when Brigham Young argued that murder was so grave a sin that Jesus' blood didn't cover it, and the sinner-murderer would have to spill his own blood in sacrifice as ransom in order to be forgiven by God.

IIRC that is why Utah was the last state to abolish the use of a firing squad for capital punishment.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Scott, are you troubled by substitutionary atonement in general, or is your problem specifically with the subset of substitutionary atonement known as penal substitution?  I ask because in some forms of substitutionary atonement would allow for Christ to have died because of our sins rather than explicitly for our sins.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Scott, are you troubled by substitutionary atonement in general, or is your problem specifically with the subset of substitutionary atonement known as penal substitution?  I ask because in some forms of substitutionary atonement would allow for Christ to have died because of our sins rather than explicitly for our sins.

Well, most substitionary atonement theories in general sound troubling to me.  I think the moral influence theory makes most sense because it doesn't suggest a ransom or an angry God seeking the blood of one man in exchange for His forgiveness of humanity.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

• Jesus forgave sin a number of times in his life and never said that they would only be forgiven after his crucifixion.

Jesus forgave sinners in life, but I don't think the Church (at least not my church nor my school) has taught a theology that says that the crucifixion was the only source of forgiveness during his life.

• God blessed all nations and put an end to sacrifices in the Old Testament (see: story of Abraham and his son).

Sacrifices of anything mortal were imperfect. It would take the sacrifice of something absolutely perfect to atone for sin in the world. There was nothing that their sacrifices could do, and it could have become a vehicle for people to skimp on their faith (just like today with tithes, and biannual church attendance).

• Jesus taught that violence does not redeem.

While Jesus was aware of the necessity of his death, he wasn't too thrilled about it, as his prayers in the garden of Gethsemane prove. I don't think he endorsed the violence of his death as much as he tolerated it.

• If God needed to sacrifice His own son in order to forgive people (which sounds pretty absurd to begin with), what happened to the people who lived and died before Jesus’ time?  Were they told to just sit and wait?

This is a good question.

Forgive my simple “stock” answers to your questions. I am sure you have heard all of these before. I am sure all of my points can be easily refuted, but the middle two in particular caught my interest.

On another note, as I type my response, I think I am not looking at your question’s depth and missing its point. Are you asking “why would the sacrifice be necessary” or are you just saying that the death Jesus isn’t enough to necessarily redeem the world?

I am not nearly as educated in Christian theology as you are, but I am interested in the subject.  Please forgive my ignorance on the subject, I’m a ‘youngin after all .

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

• Jesus forgave sin a number of times in his life and never said that they would only be forgiven after his crucifixion.

Jesus forgave sinners in life, but I don't think the Church (at least not my church nor my school) has taught a theology that says that the crucifixion was the only source of forgiveness during his life.

During Jesus's life, I believe, forgiveness came from the same ritual practices as ruled in the OT.  Of course, Jesus, being the son of God, forgave people as well and personally involved himself with sin.  The story of him forgiving a prostitute woman is a classic example of this.  Today most conservative/fundamentalist Protestant churches teach that Jesus's crucifixion is the only path one to salvation one can attain in the period after his death.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sacrifices of anything mortal were imperfect. It would take the sacrifice of something absolutely perfect to atone for sin in the world. There was nothing that their sacrifices could do, and it could have become a vehicle for people to skimp on their faith (just like today with tithes, and biannual church attendance).[/quote]

I understand the theory behind substitutionary atonement, but what I question is its inherent moral value.  Looking at it another way, one might argue that sola fide (grace by faith alone) is a vehicle for people to skimp on good works, and hope that they be judged solely on their label rather than the goodness that's in their hearts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While Jesus was aware of the necessity of his death, he wasn't too thrilled about it, as his prayers in the garden of Gethsemane prove. I don't think he endorsed the violence of his death as much as he tolerated it.[/quote]

Yes, but my point is that Jesus did not endorse a system of morality that calls for the shedding of blood for forgiveness.  Substitutionary atonement contradicts that teaching.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a good question.

Forgive my simple “stock” answers to your questions. I am sure you have heard all of these before. I am sure all of my points can be easily refuted, but the middle two in particular caught my interest.

On another note, as I type my response, I think I am not looking at your question’s depth and missing its point. Are you asking “why would the sacrifice be necessary” or are you just saying that the death Jesus isn’t enough to necessarily redeem the world?

I am not nearly as educated in Christian theology as you are, but I am interested in the subject.  Please forgive my ignorance on the subject, I’m a ‘youngin after all .
[/quote]

Don't apologize.  You're here the same reason I am: to learn.  That's why I try not to sound like a huge know-it-all on religion when my own knowledge on the subject is still very limited.  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

• God blessed all nations and put an end to sacrifices in the Old Testament (see: story of Abraham and his son).

Sacrifices of anything mortal were imperfect. It would take the sacrifice of something absolutely perfect to atone for sin in the world. There was nothing that their sacrifices could do, and it could have become a vehicle for people to skimp on their faith (just like today with tithes, and biannual church attendance).

I understand the theory behind substitutionary atonement, but what I question is its inherent moral value.  Looking at it another way, one might argue that sola fide (grace by faith alone) is a vehicle for people to skimp on good works, and hope that they be judged solely on their label rather than the goodness that's in their hearts.

Except that those with faith will, to the best of their ability, seek to do good works.  For those capable of undertaking them, works are a necessary component of faith.  Yet the quantity of works done is not the measure.  That is why the rich man has that eye of the needle to thread.  They might well do ten times the good a person of lesser means might be able to do, yet if they were capable of doing a hundredfold, have they truly exemplified faith via their works?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

• God blessed all nations and put an end to sacrifices in the Old Testament (see: story of Abraham and his son).

Sacrifices of anything mortal were imperfect. It would take the sacrifice of something absolutely perfect to atone for sin in the world. There was nothing that their sacrifices could do, and it could have become a vehicle for people to skimp on their faith (just like today with tithes, and biannual church attendance).

I understand the theory behind substitutionary atonement, but what I question is its inherent moral value.  Looking at it another way, one might argue that sola fide (grace by faith alone) is a vehicle for people to skimp on good works, and hope that they be judged solely on their label rather than the goodness that's in their hearts.

Except that those with faith will, to the best of their ability, seek to do good works.

I think that's a very broad statement.  Many people with faith will do good works, but what do we say about those do not?  More importantly, what do we say about those without faith who do good works?  Those two nagging questions are what constrain me from embracing any "grace by faith alone" philosophy.  It sounds far too open to abuse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My take on it is this: there is no formula for which one can get him or herself into Heaven; there is only God, Who has the final say on how pure a person's heart is.  I believe that God simply wants people to work according to their ability.  A rich person may be capable of doing good deeds, but a person of fewer resources might do much more.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

To answer your last question--Sanchez and Ernest are doing a pretty good job of covering the others--this is where the idea of the Harrowing of Hell in the Sacred Tradition comes from. One of my few issues with the traditional Anglican version of the Nicene Creed is that this isn't included, although I understand why that is (it's almost but not entirely absent from Scripture itself), because I think it's a really important and powerful part of the story. I had a long, emotionally exhausting day and I confused the relevant parts of the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds.

Some Eastern Orthodox mystics have said that before the Resurrection everybody who had ever lived was in Hell...and after the Resurrection nobody was left there but the demons (see Hilarion, Metropolitan of Volokolamsk's Christ the Conqueror of Hell).

In general I tend to think the East has a somewhat better handle on this than the West does. Have you looked at all into the Christus Victor model of atonement? It allows Christ to have died for our sins--as I should point out He says He is going to do in the Words of Insitution at the Last Supper--without most of what you find troublesome about substitutionary atonement.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

• God blessed all nations and put an end to sacrifices in the Old Testament (see: story of Abraham and his son).

Sacrifices of anything mortal were imperfect. It would take the sacrifice of something absolutely perfect to atone for sin in the world. There was nothing that their sacrifices could do, and it could have become a vehicle for people to skimp on their faith (just like today with tithes, and biannual church attendance).

I understand the theory behind substitutionary atonement, but what I question is its inherent moral value.  Looking at it another way, one might argue that sola fide (grace by faith alone) is a vehicle for people to skimp on good works, and hope that they be judged solely on their label rather than the goodness that's in their hearts.

Except that those with faith will, to the best of their ability, seek to do good works.

I think that's a very broad statement.  Many people with faith will do good works, but what do we say about those do not?

They may not be able to do works in the financial sense, yet I do not think God measures works by the sheqel.  Offering a word of compassion when needed, providing a shoulder to cry on, being an example of perseverance in the face of adversity: are these not all examples of works?

My take on it is this: there is no formula for which one can get him or herself into Heaven; there is only God, Who has the final say on how pure a person's heart is.  I believe that God simply wants people to work according to their ability.  A rich person may be capable of doing good deeds, but a person of fewer resources might do much more.

True, but there are many talents (pun intended) by which wealth can be measured, not merely those of silver.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To answer your last question this is where the idea of the Harrowing of Hell in the Sacred Tradition comes from. One of my few issues with the traditional Anglican version of the Nicene Creed is that this isn't included, although I understand why that is (it's almost but not entirely absent from Scripture itself), because I think it's a really important and powerful part of the story.

First off, no common version of the Nicene Creed does more than obliquely reference the Harrowing by mentioning that Jesus was dead three days, tho I suppose some churches may have added a reference to the harrowing in it so as harmonize it with the Apostles' Creed which does explicitly mention the harrowing unless you happen to be a Methodist.

Still, mentions in 1 Peter and Ephesians are fairly slender reeds for support, since many consider them to be late 1st century pseudoepigraphs written after Peter and Paul were dead and many of the traditions associated with the Harrowing are from the non-canonical Gospel of Nicodemus.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

To answer your last question this is where the idea of the Harrowing of Hell in the Sacred Tradition comes from. One of my few issues with the traditional Anglican version of the Nicene Creed is that this isn't included, although I understand why that is (it's almost but not entirely absent from Scripture itself), because I think it's a really important and powerful part of the story.

First off, no common version of the Nicene Creed does more than obliquely reference the Harrowing by mentioning that Jesus was dead three days, tho I suppose some churches may have added a reference to the harrowing in it so as harmonize it with the Apostles' Creed which does explicitly mention the harrowing unless you happen to be a Methodist.

Really? Hold on. I need to double-check this.

________


Okay, yes, I was entirely wrong about this. Never mind. (I'm sorry. That was a really stupid mistake for me to have made. I had a long day...)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm aware of this, which is why I said that it's an idea in the Sacred Tradition and almost absent from Scripture.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I read about the Christus Victor model last night.  At a first look, it appeared to contain many of the same elements of the substitutionary atonement model - that is, that blood must be shed in order for sins to be forgiven.  I gave the Wiki article another look and I'm still very troubled.  What was it about Christ's death, exactly, that freed mankind from sin, death, and the devil?  Christus Victor, like the substitutionary atonement model, seems to imply a God that required the shedding of blood in order to forgive, rather than what was a consequence of Judas' betrayal.

Sorry I'm not getting this.  There probably is an obvious answer that I'm just not seeing.

[© tweed]

my own understanding has been something like this, since I started thinking through the problem.  the Fall of man 'created' this evil realm of sin, death, etc, an underworld.  in order to defeat that underworld God had to take human form, experience human suffering and death, and then through death pass into that underworld in order to defeat it, or provide a way through it, on the other side lies freedom from sin / eternal life.

I'm not sure to what extent this aligns with the different atonement models.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

my own understanding has been something like this, since I started thinking through the problem.  the Fall of man 'created' this evil realm of sin, death, etc, an underworld.  in order to defeat that underworld God had to take human form, experience human suffering and death, and then through death pass into that underworld in order to defeat it, or provide a way through it, on the other side lies freedom from sin / eternal life.

I'm not sure to what extent this aligns with the different atonement models.

I emboldened a key word in your post.  Why would God be coerced into taking those steps if there is no power that exceeds His own?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

In my view, Jesus' death for sins is the same as his death because of sins.  If nobody had ever sinned, the He wouldn't have died.  But he died to allow the forgiveness of sins.  It was because of sins that He died, and it was also for them that He died.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

my own understanding has been something like this, since I started thinking through the problem.  the Fall of man 'created' this evil realm of sin, death, etc, an underworld.  in order to defeat that underworld God had to take human form, experience human suffering and death, and then through death pass into that underworld in order to defeat it, or provide a way through it, on the other side lies freedom from sin / eternal life.

I'm not sure to what extent this aligns with the different atonement models.

I emboldened a key word in your post.  Why would God be coerced into taking those steps if there is no power that exceeds His own?

It depends on one's conception of omnipotent.  Strictly speaking "omnipotent" means having all the power that it is possible to have, not that one has the power to do anything.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Scott, what, in your opinion, is Jesus saying when He says that His blood is 'of the new testament, [and] is shed for many for the remission of sins'?

I'm familiar with the moral influence view and I don't think it answers the question. I certainly don't think it's better than substitutionary or Christus Victor models at answering the question of why exactly Jesus had to die at all, and I interpet His behavior in Gethsemane to strongly indicate that this wasn't something that He considered incidental or optional. I understand why one would find the idea that the Crucifixion 'had to' happen troubling, but I find the idea that it didn't more troubling.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Scott, what, in your opinion, is Jesus saying when He says that His blood is 'of the new testament, [and] is shed for many for the remission of sins'?

I'm familiar with the moral influence view and I don't think it answers the question. I certainly don't think it's better than substitutionary or Christus Victor models at answering the question of why exactly Jesus had to die at all, and I interpet His behavior in Gethsemane to strongly indicate that this wasn't something that He considered incidental or optional. I understand why one would find the idea that the Crucifixion 'had to' happen troubling, but I find the idea that it didn't more troubling.

Well, that is the puzzle I'm trying to solve.  I think Jesus' words at the Last Supper can be understood as a proclamation to the end of not only the old law, but to selfishness as the basis of society.  In other words, the Crucifixion was not meant as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, but rather a symbolic call to die in the name of justice if it is warranted, which is inspired by His willingness to face the consequences of His work rather than escape them.

I know that's more speculative than Biblical, but I struggle to make sense of the theories that either endorse the idea of an angry God or a powerful Satanic force taking the world for ransom.

[Zioneer]

"The" Christian Church? There's plenty of them, you know.

Anyway, the LDS Church makes it a bit easier; those who died without any knowledge of the "restored gospel" (our faith) before and after Christ, and even in the present day (like a tribe in the Amazon), don't have to sit and wait. They get to be temporarily judged on their deeds and if they were a good person, they get to hang out with other righteous people, and be taught the Gospel. If they were not righteous, then they get taught anyway and presumably usually accept the Gospel anyway, but if they don't, they're not punished. Well, at least not until the final judgement anyway, but that's a different doctrine.

When I say "Christian Church," I refer to the assemblage of all Christians, Catholic or Protestant.

Thanks for the insight on that.

Ah, I see. And I have no problem providing my experience/faith's doctrine. I can explain the system we have beyond the final judgement if you want, the three different heavens doctrine.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Sorry - it was probably rude of me to close this without giving a reason.  I had a short conversation with Jbrase last night on Facebook about this.  I won't go into detail, but basically I came to understand that Jesus' Crucifixion is actually perfectly consistent with his message of turning the other cheek, and that it doesn't contradict any of his other teachings.  I also think Oldiesfreak made a strong point on Jesus dying both because and for our sins.

Thanks to everyone who helped me make sense of this.  I'll close the thread now.