What Does The Phrase "christ Suffered For Our Sins" Mean?

[CrimsonKairos]

In the LDS Church, we hear alot in lessons and whatnot how "Christ suffered for our sins," so we could be forgiven. In parables like Elder Packer's "The Mediator" there's the imagery of a debt being owed to a creditor, and a "savior" paying the debt and freeing his friend.

But does this really mean that the punishment for our sins was suffered by Christ just so we wouldn't have to if we repent? It is clear that Christ suffered infinitely in Gethsemane and on Calvary, but was it nothing more than Jesus taking our metaphorical/spiritual whipping for us so we could be forgiven if we repented?

I've often read and re-read Alma 34:11-12 and thought that perhaps the suffering of Christ was something altogether different from the Primary-lesson explanation of the atonement:

11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

To me, this is saying that if a law is just or fair, it will not assign the consequences of one person's actions to a different person. If I steal and must spend two years in jail, it isn't just for my brother to serve my sentence for me just because I'm really sorry and promise not to do it again. What judge in the world would transfer my guilty verdict to my brother just because he volunteered to serve my prison term for me? Would that be just? Would that be fair?

Now granted Christ is not a mere mortal, and the laws of heaven are not man-made laws. Still, I find it strange that the atonement for our sins would be nothing more than Christ serving our "prison term" for us if we repent. If that was the case, it would be merely a case of quid-pro-quo: "This metaphorical jail cell must be occupied by someone for a year; it doesn't matter who occupies it, as long as someone does."

I'm defining justice as: "administering the law; enforcing the law." Justice also connotes "fairness," or an eye for an eye. Specifically, it's not just any 'ole eye for an eye...justice requires the eye of him who poked out the other guy's eye. What if a law said this: "If a purse is stolen, the purse must be returned or the value thereof restored, and a prison-term of six months must be served; it doesn't have to be the thief who restores the value and sits in jail. As long as someone does these things, the law is satisfied." Is that just?

No, the law is not merely concerned with righting wrongs, but with making the person who was in the wrong, make things right. I have a hard time believing a God of laws and justice could arbitrarily re-assign the punishment for our sins to Christ just because Jesus asks Him to. I don't see the atonement as a progression of events like: We sin; God raises the flail of Justice to punish us; we repent; Christ steps in the way just in time to receive our whipping for us. Why don't I believe this is what happens? Alma 34:14-15 says:

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.

Verse 15 intrigues me. Let's read it backwards in terms of concepts: Men can repent...because they have faith...that justice's demands have been overpowered...by the bowels of mercy...which result from Christ's atoning sacrifice. I find it interesting that verse 15 says the bowels of mercy overpower justice. My dictionary defines "overpower" as: defeat or overcome with superior strength; be too intense for; overwhelm. If the atonement is just quid-pro-quo, if it just involves transferring our punishments to Christ, then that has nothing to do with overpowering justice. Rather, that's doing what justice demands, namely, to dispense a punishment when a law is broken.

To me, overpowering justice would involve removing the demand that someone be punished, period. That's not the same as removing the demand that we be punished if Christ suffers in our place. Overpowering justice would mean no one has to receive the punishment, not us or Christ. I'll use a courtroom analogy to illustrate these two different models of the atonement.

The first model of how the atonement works (the one I hear taught in Church) goes like this:

JUDGE: The defendant is found guilty of arson. He will serve a prison term of no less than five years.

DEFENSE LAWYER: Your Honor, the defendant's brother has volunteered to serve this prison term. I request that you transfer the conviction and judgment to the defendant's brother, and let my client go free.

JUDGE: Why should I do this?

DEFENSE LAWYER: Because the defendant's brother has never committed a crime, is an upstanding citizen, and loves his brother.

JUDGE: Motion granted. Bailiff, release the defendant and take his brother into custody.

The second model of how the atonement works (the one I'm pondering) would go like this:

JUDGE: The defendant is found guilty of arson. He will serve a prison term of no less than five years.

DEFENSE LAWYER: Your Honor, I'm requesting that the prosecution drop all charges and that you dismiss this case against my client.

JUDGE: On what grounds?

On what grounds indeed. What could be so powerful that "the prosecutor" would drop all charges against the sinner, and that "the judge" would dismiss the case against us? What would be so compelling as to overpower justice's demands against us sinners?

How about the life of a God?

I believe that Christ's voluntarily sacrificed life is what drives this "motion to dismiss." You may say, "Well no kidding genius, everyone knows that!" What I hear most people say is that Christ gave his life while suffering the punishment for our sins. This is not what I mean, however. I mean that Christ's death on the cross is ultimately the act that overpowers justice. How? Not by means of quid-pro-quo. Rather, I think Christ presents his perfect innocence and the blood he gave while being murdered on the cross as sufficient reasons to "dismiss the charges" against us. Why would justice cease to demand that we be punished? For Christ's sake.

It's rather ironic that justice is overpowered by the ultimate injustice (Christ's crucifixion and death). In fact, when we show mercy or feel pity for someone, it's usually because they've experienced an injustice; something has happened to them that they didn't deserve. If you're a landlord and your tenant can't pay their rent on time because they were robbed the day before, you can either evict them or show mercy because of the crime committed against them, and give them more time to pay their rent.

So again, I believe that Christ's sacrificed life is what overpowers justice. I don't believe Jesus received the specific punishment for our specific sins and that's why we can be forgiven. To be sure, being crucified in the process of redeeming us is a punishment. What I'm saying, though, is that I don't think Christ "served our prison sentence" in our place. I think that Christ's perfect life and perfect innocence and perfectly unjust death are in themselves what overpowers justice for the repentant, and are what removes the need for anyone to serve a prison sentence. Here are a few scriptures that are key to me and my belief:

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." (Leviticus 17:11)

"I am the same which have taken the Zion of Enoch into mine own bosom; and verily, I say, even as many as have believed in my name, for I am Christ, and in mine own name, by the virtue of the blood which I have spilt, have I pleaded before the Father for them." (D&C 38:4)

"Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—

"Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;

"Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life." (D&C 45:3-5)

I find it interesting that in the last two passages quoted above, Jesus doesn't mention that he "served our prison sentence" for us and that's why we can be forgiven. In fact in D&C 45, in what I call the true Intercessory Prayer, Jesus calls attention to his innocence and spilled blood as reasons for God to forgive us. While much of the Law of Moses was symbolic, I also find it interesting that the blood of the sacrificial animals (bullock and lamb especially) is what "cleansed Israel of sin." The high priest didn't stone the lamb in place of the adulterer, etc... Rather, because the sacrificial animal was free of spot, "innocent," it's blood made forgiveness of sins possible.

Now some of you may say, "Well if a punishment isn't given for sinning, that's robbing justice!" Not so. If Mosaic justice demanded that an adulterer be stoned, and that adulterer wasn't stoned, that would be robbing justice. But if the requirement for the adulterer to be stoned was removed, that isn't robbing justice, it's overpowering justice. Alma 42 explains these concepts very well, especially the following verses. Note that in verses 13, 22 and 24 it states that mercy cannot be granted except to the repentant...otherwise, it wouldn't be just to dispense mercy (forgive the apparent paradox)...it would, in essence, rob justice. Here are the verses:

13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

I'm not sure if this distinction makes much sense to any of you. I'd be interested in knowing what you guys think of my views from an LDS viewpoint, especially in light of the quotes from LDS scripture that I've provided. To recap, I don't believe Christ suffered the punishment for our sins that the law demanded. Rather, I believe Christ's perfect innocence and voluntarily sacrificed blood are able to overpower justice's demands that anyone be punished for sin, if a person has godly sorrow and repents of their sins.

Any thoughts, differences of opinion, disagreements?

[Brother Dorsey]

In the LDS Church, we hear alot in lessons and whatnot how "Christ suffered for our sins," so we could be forgiven. In parables like Elder Packer's "The Mediator" there's the imagery of a debt being owed to a creditor, and a "savior" paying the debt and freeing his friend.

But does this really mean that the punishment for our sins was suffered by Christ just so we wouldn't have to if we repent? It is clear that Christ suffered infinitely in Gethsemane and on Calvary, but was it nothing more than Jesus taking our metaphorical/spiritual whipping for us so we could be forgiven if we repented?

I'm not sure if this distinction makes much sense to any of you. I'd be interested in knowing what you guys think of my views from an LDS viewpoint, especially in light of the quotes from LDS scripture that I've provided. To recap, I don't believe Christ suffered the punishment for our sins that the law demanded. Rather, I believe Christ's perfect innocence and voluntarily sacrificed blood are able to overpower justice's demands that anyone be punished for sin, if a person has godly sorrow and repents of their sins.

Any thoughts, differences of opinion, disagreements?

Hi Crimson.....

I think you have to remember that Christ knows us personally...and how does he know us this way? Because he suffered all the things we suffer, he knows our sins and the sins done against us because he made them his own, all our sorrow, pain, guilt etc. he made his own....he had to or he could not know us and judge us. His infinite atonement for our sins is just that, infinite. Remember his words when he was dying on the cross..."Father why has thou forsaken me?" He said this because the Spirit of God was not with him because he was unclean with the sin of the world within him. But he finished his mission with total faith in the Father and love for us. Because he took the responsibility for all our sins we are washed clean if we come unto him and try to keep his commandments and covenants. I know it sound unfair to Christ, I know it sounds too easy...but this is the love he has for us.

In regard to suffering punishment for our sins, You have to remember he was a perfect being, sinless, he did not know hate, or any of the other horrible things people can and have done and continue to do, so, when he took responsibility for these things he had to know them and experience them, to suffer the guilt of the offender and the pain of the offended...for instance he was the torturer and murderer but also the one who was tortured and murdered...he experienced every feeling and nuance of every sin from both perspectives....so I think you can say yes he suffered the punishment because he experienced the sin from both sides. And because he was the son of God he could do this....us mere humans would have been thrown out of existence. I for one am forever grateful for his atonement.

[pushka]

From a non LDS perspective.

I believe I was taught, at my Roman Catholic school, that Jesus died to atone for the sin committed by Adam and Eve, what the R.C.C. refers to as Original Sin.

I assume that this opened up the opportunity for us to gain forgiveness for all other sins via conversion to Christianity, and full repentence for the sins we have committed.

If there are any R.C.C. members here, who can either verify that I have recalled my teaching correctly or otherwise...please feel free to do so...it is many years since I studied any part of the Catechism!

[CrimsonKairos]

Because he suffered all the things we suffer, he knows our sins and the sins done against us because he made them his own, all our sorrow, pain, guilt etc. he made his own....he had to or he could not know us and judge us.

I agree that because of what Christ suffered, he knows what it feels like to sin. To return to the analogy of serving a prison sentence as a punishment for breaking God's law (sinning): Through the atonement, Jesus learned what it feels like for someone to be in prison...but he didn't have to serve the prison sentence just so we wouldn't have to if we repent.

I guess I dislike the cliche flavor of someone saying, "Christ suffered for our sins so we could repent." To me, that sounds like someone's saying, "Christ suffered the punishment for my breaking God's law...Christ served my spiritual prison sentence so that if I repent I don't have to sit in prison myself." I think that's inaccurate. Christ doesn't ask God to forgive us for his sake because he has a record of "time served" on our behalf. Christ asks God to forgive us because of his perfect innocence and unjustly spilled blood (D&C 45:3-5). Christ's sacrifice removes the demand for anyone to sit in prison, whether Christ or us.

I disagree that Christ couldn't judge us if he didn't know what it feels like to sin. Judging involves comparing someone's acts (or works) to the law and deciding when acts are in opposition to the law. This however is a trifling disagreement and not worth exploring.

"Father why has thou forsaken me?" He said this because the Spirit of God was not with him because he was unclean with the sin of the world within him.

I think I know what you're saying, though I disagree with your literal statement. Christ was not unclean, ever. Heavenly Father and the Spirit withdrew their presence from Christ as if he had sinned. He had not, in fact, ever sinned, which is why this removal of the Spirit was infinitely unjust. In this regard I agree that someone could say suffering the withdrawal of the Spirit was in a way Christ suffering the punishment for our sins, since one consequence of being spiritually unclean is a loss of the Spirit's influence in our lives in any degree. However, I don't think Christ had to experience this so we wouldn't have to if we repented.

I think the main reason Christ had to be left alone on the cross was so he could say, "I completed the sacrifice by myself; no one helped me; it was done entirely by me without the help of my Father or the Spirit. Because my sacrifice was made alone, I have the right to invoke mercy for my sake without dependence on anyone else." The scriptures suggest this (Leviticus 16:17; Isaiah 63:3, 5; D&C 133:50). Even though the agony of Gethsemane is unfathomable to me, an angel was sent to comfort Christ as he suffered, so in that respect he had the support of his Father. But on the cross, as he offered his life's blood for our sake, he had to be alone as far as being able to draw on any outside source for spiritual strength.

In regard to suffering punishment for our sins...when he took responsibility for these things he had to know them and experience them, to suffer the guilt of the offender and the pain of the offended...he experienced every feeling and nuance of every sin from both perspectives...

I need you to clarify something. You said Christ "took responsibility for our sins," and so had to experience their punishment. Let me present two main ways of looking at this, and ask which you believe is true. Take the parable of a debtor and a creditor and a mediator. Is Christ's atonement like:

(1) The mediator taking his own funds and paying the creditor what the debtor owes; or...

(2) The mediator--through some overpowering act on his part--getting the creditor to stop demanding that the debt be paid at all.

Which of the two above views do you think represents how Christ's atonement makes forgiveness possible?

I do agree that through some process I can't fathom, Christ experienced every pain and agony (whether spiritual, emotional, physical or mental) we can experience, as well as the misery that being guilty of sin and cut off from God entails. Let me generalize what I believe Christ suffered with two phrases: "broken bones," and "broken laws." "Broken bones" encompasses the pain involved in losing a limb in an accident, or the pain of losing a loved one...basically, suffering that isn't the result of a moral sin on our part. "Broken laws" includes the misery that attends sinning and distancing ourselves from God and the Spirit's influence.

I'm not denying that Christ suffered immensely while atoning. I'm saying I believe that several phrases we use in the Church misrepresent how Christ's atonement "works." For example:

1.) "Christ suffered for our sins." I think people interpret that to mean Christ paid the "creditor" what we "owed him" as a result of our sins, so we wouldn't have to pay our "debt" if we repent. I think this is incorrect. I believe that Christ convinces the "creditor" to "cancel our debt," for Christ's sake and because of his incredibly unjust suffering.

For justice to cease demanding that sinners be punished, something infinitely unjust must generate an overwhelming sense of pity leading to mercy...this infinite injustice was Christ's being convicted and murdered for something he was innocent of, and voluntarily allowing it to happen to him out of love for us.

2.) "Christ took our sins upon him." When people say this, they explain that it means Christ "took their whipping for them." Again, I don't think this is what the atonement is about. It's not about transferring our punishment to Christ so we don't have to suffer; it's about cancelling the demand for us or anyone to suffer upon conditions of repentance.

I believe the Law of Moses explains this "dismissal or forgetting of spiritual debt" through the symbol of the scapegoat. Leviticus 16 describes it all. On the Day of Atonement, once a year, the High Priest would take two goats. After "casting a lot" upon them, he would identify one as the scapegoat and the other as the "sin offering."

After killing the "sin offering" goat, the high priest sprinkled its blood on the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies. Leviticus 16 says this is to atone for or cleanse the congregation of Israel of all their sins and transgressions. After this blood is sprinkled on the mercy seat, the high priest lays his hands on the scapegoat's head and confesses Israel's iniquities and transgressions over it, putting the sins of Israel on the goat...but the goat isn't killed! It's sent off into the wilderness, alive and well, into "a land not inhabited" (Lev. 16:22).

To me, this symbolizes the creditor "cancelling our debt," or justice ceasing to demand that our sins be punished...in effect, it's our sins being forgotten or the case against us being dismissed. Interestingly, this "forgetting of our sins" or sending off of the scapegoat only happens after the blood of the "sin offering" goat is sprinkled in the Holy of Holies on the mercy seat. To me, this illustrates the chronology of mercy overpowering justice:

After Christ allowed himself to be crucified and die (sprinkling the "sin offering" goat's blood on the mercy seat), the ultimate injustice had been committed, an infinite injustice that arouses pity strong enough to get justice to forget its claims against us if we repent (sending the scapegoat away living and well). The Lord says that once we repent, he remembers our sins no more (D&C 58:42).

This is a subtle distinction I'm making concerning how Christ's atonement "works," but it's an important distinction I think. What does anyone else think?

[BenRaines]

CK, I like your line of thinking. I can't find anything about it that I would disagree with.

I also feel that the Holy Ghost who had been with Christ through all his tests and pain was removed so that all glory would be to Christ who overcame it all, by himself, without any interference.

I like the thread.

Ben Raines

[CrimsonKairos]

Ben, you said exactly what I was trying to say, namely that Heavenly Father had to withdraw all support from Christ on the cross so the glory would be Christ's alone (also so he would have a perfect right to request mercy on our behalf). Thanks for the feedback.

[Brother Dorsey]

Ben, you said exactly what I was trying to say, namely that Heavenly Father had to withdraw all support from Christ on the cross so the glory would be Christ's alone (also so he would have a perfect right to request mercy on our behalf). Thanks for the feedback.

Well Crimson....you have definitely broadened my mind regarding Christs Atonement...I never thought of it in the way you present it but it really makes much more sense.....this is why I love this board....thanks!

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm glad my comments make sense to others. I've only recently come to these conclusions concerning how mercy overpowers justice, and they are certainly different in some ways than what I was taught in Sunday school. Thanks for the feedback.

[Traveler]

There are two parts of justice. The first part is to protect the innocent. This is the most important notion of justice - If innocence is not protected justice has failed.

The second part is to punish the guilty. That is for each offence a punishment is required. The problem is that many think that punishment is a payment for a crime. That is not true. Punishment is affixed not as a payment for offence but as a means to make an end to the suffering of the innocent in offences. But there is something in addition because of the atonement and that addition is mercy. Not just the mercy of G-d but the mercy of the innocent that were offended.

Because justice has obligation to protect innocence more than to punish guilty there is a major problem when innocence suffers the demands of justice. Jesus being the only innocent in suffering the demands of justice - thus justice can be (or is) overcome or overpowered by the mercy (willing to suffer) of the innocent. Because Jesus has done this it is necessary that anyone harmed by an offence forgive the offender for the process to be complete. This is why Jesus commanded that we unconditionally forgive our trespassers. If we do not forgive our trespassers we deny the mercy of Christ even unto ourselves.

The first principle of Christ or believing in Christ is to forgive others - We cannot complete our own process of repentance until we have completed the forgiveness of others. Thus we can know that we (as well as anyone else) are not redeemed of our sins or born again until we have forgiven our trespassers.

Sad as it may seem some that pretend to believe in or have faith in the Christ refuse to acknowledge our investment in the mercy of Christ and by their agency deny the Christ and require the shedding of his innocent blood by not forgiving their trespassers implying forgiveness is a work and is not necessary - Christ, by himself, has overcome.

The Traveler

[CrimsonKairos]

There are two parts of justice. The first part is to protect the innocent.

I like how you break justice down into two parts. However, the notion that justice is concerned with protecting the innocent seems to me to be more of an earthly legal concept. For instance, many sins we commit affect only ourselves; no one else is harmed by them. If we break the word of wisdom, it is to our spiritual detriment alone. In other words, someone smoking a cigarette doesn't affect whether their neighbor can feel the Spirit as much.

Having said that, I do agree that many of God's laws are meant to protect the innocent. Many of the ten commandments, for example, deal with our interactions with others (killing, stealing, adultery, lying).

Punishment is affixed not as a payment for offence but as a means to make an end to the suffering of the innocent in offences.

I'm not sure I'm understanding this right. What do you mean by punishment being able to "make an end to the suffering of the innocent in offences?" In other words, how does a thief being punished help end the suffering of he who was robbed? I'm not arguing this point, I really do want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Jesus being the only innocent in suffering the demands of justice - thus justice can be (or is) overcome or overpowered by the mercy (willing to suffer) of the innocent.

This is where I differ from my previous understanding of the atonement. I no longer believe Jesus suffered the demands of justice. I believe Jesus suffered unjustly in that he was crucified for being righteous; it is that infinite injustice to perfect innocence that arouses pity capable of convincing justice to retract its demands against those those who sin, but then repent and worthily invoke Christ's name. This is how I see mercy overpowering justice.

Maybe this delineation is semantic, I don't know. Does what I said in the above paragraph reflect your view, or do we believe two different things about what Christ suffered?

If we do not forgive our trespassers we deny the mercy of Christ even unto ourselves.

Well said. I agree.

[Traveler]

QUOTE

Punishment is affixed not as a payment for offence but as a means to make an end to the suffering of the innocent in offences.

I'm not sure I'm understanding this right. What do you mean by punishment being able to "make an end to the suffering of the innocent in offences?" In other words, how does a thief being punished help end the suffering of he who was robbed? I'm not arguing this point, I really do want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

You thinking is too simplistic. For example a parent of a child that is being held in punishment suffers - as would the spouse, children, friends and anyone else that loves that person being punished.

QUOTE

Jesus being the only innocent in suffering the demands of justice - thus justice can be (or is) overcome or overpowered by the mercy (willing to suffer) of the innocent.

This is where I differ from my previous understanding of the atonement. I no longer believe Jesus suffered the demands of justice. I believe Jesus suffered unjustly in that he was crucified for being righteous; it is that infinite injustice to perfect innocence that arouses pity capable of convincing justice to retract its demands against those those who sin, but then repent and worthily invoke Christ's name. This is how I see mercy overpowering justice.

Maybe this delineation is semantic, I don't know. Does what I said in the above paragraph reflect your view, or do we believe two different things about what Christ suffered?

I think the point you have missed is that Jesus made "intercession". Meaning that what justice has meted out as punishment through the intercession by Jesus. There is a good example of this in the scriptures when David (before he was king) declared war on a guy who’s name I cannot remember and Abigail met David and offered payment for her husband offence and offered her life to end the war.

The point is that sin can and does cause the righteous and innocent to suffer - This is the great miscarriage of sin in the world.

I like how you break justice down into two parts. However, the notion that justice is concerned with protecting the innocent seems to me to be more of an earthly legal concept. For instance, many sins we commit affect only ourselves; no one else is harmed by them. If we break the word of wisdom, it is to our spiritual detriment alone. In other words, someone smoking a cigarette doesn't affect whether their neighbor can feel the Spirit as much.

Having said that, I do agree that many of God's laws are meant to protect the innocent. Many of the ten commandments, for example, deal with our interactions with others (killing, stealing, adultery, lying).

There is no such thing as a sin that effects only the sinner. For example those that smoke defile the temple of G-d because our physical bodies are the temple of G-d. There is no sin against just ourself for all sin is against G-d.

The Traveler

[CrimsonKairos]

You thinking is too simplistic. For example a parent of a child that is being held in punishment suffers - as would the spouse, children, friends and anyone else that loves that person being punished.

I'm still not sure I get how this applies to the atonement but that's my fault.

I think the point you have missed is that Jesus made "intercession." Meaning that what justice has meted out as punishment through the intercession by Jesus.

I disagree that intercession necessarily involves payment. "Intercede" means: intervene on behalf of another. In D&C 45:3-5, Jesus intercedes for the repentant, but in so doing he doesn't offer to suffer the demands of justice...Jesus calls God's attention to his innocence and spilled blood as reasons for God to forgive us.

I know the story you're talking about with David and Abigail and her interceding on her wicked husband's behalf, but that's just one type of intercession. I don't think that interceding has to mean suffering someone else's punishment so they won't have to.

The point is that sin can and does cause the righteous and innocent to suffer - This is the great miscarriage of sin in the world.

Agreed.

There is no sin against just ourself for all sin is against G-d.

Correct, but I was talking about sins that affect other people, not God. So in my example, sure smoking a cigarette defiles God's temple which is our body; but my point was that one person smoking doesn't decrease his neighbor's spiritual sensitivity...in that sense, it's a sin that affects only the person smoking.

[Dror]

CK,

I have long wondered why Jesus had to die for our sins at all. After all, how is His death supposed to remove our sins? Why couldn't the Father simply say to us, "you are forgiven," without Jesus' dying?

One popular way of looking at the Atonement posits that God requires that punishment be meted out for our sins. Because Jesus loves us, He took our sins upon Himself by accepting our punishment, so we would not have to be punished, thus fulfilling the demands of justice. And yet, this is not justice. True justice requires that the person who is actually responsible suffer the penalty for his sins.

Why would punishment be necessary? As a deterrent? If so, then Jesus is thwarting justice by removing the deterrent. Could punishment be for revenge? We do bad things, make God angry, and He feels the need to punish us? Or if Jesus is willing to accept it, to punish Him? Limited though my understanding of God may be, this just doesn't jibe with what I do know about Him.

A close friend of mine has suggested that maybe the Atonement is more of a revelation than a courtroom scene. Specifically, a revelation of God Himself. We know from the scriptures that Jesus is a perfect likeness of Heavenly Father. Jesus states that what we see Him do is only what the Father would do.

Is it possible that by suffering and dying for our sins, Jesus showed, as powerfully as He could, what God the Father would have done in His place? Is it possible that the Atonement is the revelation that God would rather suffer unspeakable pain Himself than inflict punishment upon us, even though He is perfectly innocent, and we are quite guilty? What Man has greater love than this, than to lay down His life for His fellows?

(Somehow I get the feeling some people won't like what I've said! That's ok--I don't claim a perfect understanding. It's worth thinking about, though.)

Dror

[Maureen]

I have long wondered why Jesus had to die for our sins at all....

For the payoff of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

(Romans 6:23, NET Bible)

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

(Romans 6:23, KJV)

May I suggest reading the entire book of Romans, here's a description of the book's theme from my NIV Bible:

Paul's primary theme in Romans is the basic gospel, God's plan of salvation and righteousness for all mankind, Jew and Gentile alike. Although justification by faith has been suggested by some as the theme, it would seem that a broader theme states the message of the book more dequately. "Righteousness from God" includes justification by faith, but it also embraces such related ideas as guilt, sancitification and security.

M.

[pushka]

Your theory sounds reasonable enough to me Dror! :)

[CrimsonKairos]

Why couldn't the Father simply say to us, "you are forgiven," without Jesus' dying?

That would be robbing justice.

True justice requires that the person who is actually responsible suffer the penalty for his sins.

Precisely. Christ's sacrifice was about overpowering justice, not merely transfering the punishment from us to him.

One popular way of looking at the Atonement posits that God requires that punishment be meted out for our sins...Why would punishment be necessary? As a deterrent...for revenge? Limited though my understanding of God may be, this just doesn't jibe with what I do know about Him.

I believe that the universal laws of "right and wrong" are self-existing laws that even God must abide by. So in that sense, it's not that God wrote the law and demands His laws be fulfilled. It's inherent morality or eternal "justice" that demands that a punishment be dispensed when a law is broken. If God wishes to be perfectly good and just, He must administer these laws that He did not create.

Is it possible that by suffering and dying for our sins, Jesus showed, as powerfully as He could, what God the Father would have done in His place?

As beautiful as that idea may be, the fact remains that the scriptures describe justice's demands and the need to deal with them in one way or another. The symbolism in the Law of Moses involved a pure and innocent sacrifice appeasing God's wrath, wrath provoked by His people's sins. Of course the people had to be repentant. I don't see how this idea of the atonement as being a revelation of God's love alone meshes with the scriptural teachings on justice, laws, sins, and punishments.

Is it possible that the Atonement is the revelation that God would rather suffer unspeakable pain Himself than inflict punishment upon us, even though He is perfectly innocent, and we are quite guilty? What Man has greater love than this, than to lay down His life for His fellows?

There has to be more to it than that. Plenty of parents spare their children from being disciplined, but that's not divine love, that's sentimentality and weakness in many cases. The reason Christ was willing to suffer for us was not just because he doesn't like seeing us suffer. The reason he suffered for us is stated succinctly in D&C 45:5 as below:

"Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life."

Interesting ideas Dror, though I'd have to talk to this friend of yours to really make sure I understand what he/she means.

[prisonchaplain]

This string is in desperate need of a cute, sweet religious cliche--so here it is:

I'm so thankful for the atonement...my

AT - ONE - MENT with God.

[CrimsonKairos]

Tyndale is smiling in his grave PC. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Tyndale is smiling in his grave PC. :)

So who was it that said justified means: JUST AS IF I'D never sinned?

[CrimsonKairos]

I surrender, who was it?

[prisonchaplain]

Not sure. It's a common refrain in Sunday School classes. I figured you might know, since you pegged my other cliche to Tyndale.

[Dr T]

Hey CK,

You said,

I believe that the universal laws of "right and wrong" are self-existing laws that even God must abide by. So in that sense, it's not that God wrote the law and demands His laws be fulfilled. It's inherent morality or eternal "justice" that demands that a punishment be dispensed when a law is broken. If God wishes to be perfectly good and just, He must administer these laws that He did not create.

Maybe you are right that they are eternal. Maybe they are eternal because because they come from an eternal God's essence. If God is the moral law giver, from his divine characteristics, maybe it would be more accurate to say that they were or do come from Him because of who He is. And his is bound by them because he must be consistent with who he is.

Dr. T

[CrimsonKairos]

If God is the moral law giver, from his divine characteristics, maybe it would be more accurate to say that they were or do come from Him because of who He is.

I think the difference here is based on the LDS belief that there are other gods with their own kindgoms and spirit children elsewhere in the universe, and that no "one" made the rules so to speak; they just always have been, and those who adhere to them progress eternally while those who disregard them are damned...literally, held back from progressing as a stream is held back by a dam.

[pushka]

Hey CK, I just couldn't resist posting this:

Tomorrow I must try yelling 'DAMN' at the river nearby, and see if it holds itself back...lol, only teasing :)

[CrimsonKairos]

Hahahaha pushka, good call. I've been hit hard the past few days with a serious flu/virus and my brain has been throbbing regularly every few seconds so...I misspelled dam as damn.

Reminds me of a joke:

What did the salmon say when it swam into a concrete wall?

Dam.

(Sounds better when spoken...the whole homonym thing )