What price did he pay


Chainsaw
 Share

Recommended Posts

Our gospel vernacular often ascribes the phrase “paid the price” in reference to the Savior’s atonement. What exactly do we think this means?

 

Part of the reason this has been on my mind is because we know that the consequence of our sins is spiritual death, or for that matter, eternal separation from God and no eternal redemption or divine potential. Essentially eternal damnation for all of us had there been no atonement wrought by Jesus. 
 

So we are told Christ paid the price…however from my view (which I concede is extremely limited) he didn’t suffer what we would have suffered. So exactly how did he pay the price if He didn’t endure what we would have had to endure?
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chainsaw said:

Our gospel vernacular often ascribes the phrase “paid the price” in reference to the Savior’s atonement. What exactly do we think this means?

 

Part of the reason this has been on my mind is because we know that the consequence of our sins is spiritual death, or for that matter, eternal separation from God and no eternal redemption or divine potential. Essentially eternal damnation for all of us had there been no atonement wrought by Jesus. 
 

So we are told Christ paid the price…however from my view (which I concede is extremely limited) he didn’t suffer what we would have suffered. So exactly how did he pay the price if He didn’t endure what we would have had to endure?
 

 

I am not as ardently attached to the penal substitution theory of atonement as I used to be.  But, the contradiction you cite never really bothered me—it just reiterated why nothing less than an infinite atonement was necessary and why no one less than a God could have done it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Chainsaw said:

Our gospel vernacular often ascribes the phrase “paid the price” in reference to the Savior’s atonement. What exactly do we think this means?

Part of the reason this has been on my mind is because we know that the consequence of our sins is spiritual death, or for that matter, eternal separation from God and no eternal redemption or divine potential. Essentially eternal damnation for all of us had there been no atonement wrought by Jesus. 

So we are told Christ paid the price…however from my view (which I concede is extremely limited) he didn’t suffer what we would have suffered. So exactly how did he pay the price if He didn’t endure what we would have had to endure?

It is my sincere belief that the specifics of Christ's atonement are intentionally (and mercifully) withheld from us as public revelation. If we gain any insights into that topic, it will be through faith, prayer, and then personal, private revelation. I have spoken of this topic to my younger brother, but to no one else. It's not that I believe that my musings are either so profound or so damaging that I dare not risk anyone else's mental and spiritual health by inflicting my Deep Thoughts upon them. Rather, it's that if such things were indeed given me by the Spirit, they are for me, not others, and I believe God will hold me accountable for how I treat his personal revelations.

Having said that, let me add that there is a very real risk that the solid food (which is what the scriptures mean by "meat") of the gospel may choke those who need to suckle sweet and nourishing milk. You do not feed bread and fish to newborn infants. I have absolutely no doubt that if we learned even a small part of celestial reality when we are unprepared, the knowledge would overwhelm us and we would very likely turn away in horror. The supremely ironic truth is that God offers us a joy so vast, so intense, so all-consuming, that we in our present state could not bear it. The joy would be too much for us. We would be unable to support it, just as we would be unable to withstand the glory of God in our unprotected mortal flesh.

The ultimate purpose of our lives here on earth is to prepare us to withstand a far more, and exceeding, and eternal weight of glory. (See 2 Corinthians 4:17, D&C 63:66, and especially D&C 132:16) Our intimately related capacities to love and to feel joy—you cannot do one without the other—must become as God's is before we can inherit the unthinkable joy of the Father. "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (1 Corinthians 2:9) And sharing the contents of a personal revelation risks exposing people to an intensity of realization or emotion or thought that could cause spiritual injury to the unprepared. For example, no matter how pro-marriage we are and no matter how much we value and reverence the state of matrimony, we do not allow our little children to marry. The relationship is too intense and too filled with grave responsibility to foist it on the shoulders of a child.

The strongest and most righteous among us are spiritual children, here in mortality learning our primary lessons for eternal life. The nitty-gritty specifics of the atonement of the Lord are hidden from us now, lest we shrink in terror or damn ourselves by mocking that which is most sacred. If we seek for such knowledge in an appropriate manner, preparing ourselves to both receive and cherish the understanding, then when we are ready the Lord will give us what we seek, whether in this life or the next.

By the way, this is one reason that I deplore speculation on "deep" gospel topics. 99.997% of the time, we will be so absurdly wrong that our foolishness will make a mockery while we speak of that of which we have no comprehension at all. This is a bad thing, something to be avoided. Much worse is the exceedingly rare occasion when, in our foolish blabbering and our vain attempts to show off, we might stumble upon some grain of real and deep truth, something that ought not be shared openly because it is true, and vanishingly few are ready to hear it. That is something that could truly damage the spirit of a brother or sister, and thus is to be avoided at all costs.

My thoughts, for what they're worth to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Chainsaw said:

Our gospel vernacular often ascribes the phrase “paid the price” in reference to the Savior’s atonement. What exactly do we think this means?

 

Part of the reason this has been on my mind is because we know that the consequence of our sins is spiritual death, or for that matter, eternal separation from God and no eternal redemption or divine potential. Essentially eternal damnation for all of us had there been no atonement wrought by Jesus. 
 

So we are told Christ paid the price…however from my view (which I concede is extremely limited) he didn’t suffer what we would have suffered. So exactly how did he pay the price if He didn’t endure what we would have had to endure?
 

 

 

I think there are several different ideas and takes on the matter.

Here is one of them.  It is a slight twist on the ideas of Skousen. 

A Judge is just as long as they deliver the correct punishment for the law.  For example, if the punishment for stealing is to lose a hand, then if someone steals, taking their hand is the punishment.

If the punishment for murder is death, than the right punishment for someone who murders someone else is death.

BUT...what happens if the Judge is the one who commits the crime or is unjust?  What happens if the law becomes unjust?  If you have an innocent man, and the judge, knowingly, punishes that man for murder even though the judge knows the man is innocent...who then is the murderer?

In this, the judge then is the one who is the one who is at the mercy of the one he unjustly punished.  In order for the Judge to remain judge and to retain his spot, he may be willing to grant leniency to others that the one he wronged asks him to grant leniency to.  AS the judge is rightfully condemned at this as the guilty party, only the one who was innocent can actually deliver judgement, or be the final arbitrator...interceding when the judge decrees a punishment when the innocent decides that leniency or mercy is necessary.

The judge cannot restore that which was taken, thus is in the debt to the one he wronged.  The debt equals the amount he is in debt to the innocent he punished.  It is upon this idea that mercy can have place, for if the judge demands punishment upon others when the innocent decries it, than punishment must also fall upon the judge as he is also guilty of a crime. 

Thus, while the judge still has laws and justice is served as he is the judge, mercy can also have a place when the only innocent person in the court asks for leniency lest all the judgment falls upon the judge and laws are no longer enforced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Chainsaw said:

So we are told Christ paid the price…however from my view (which I concede is extremely limited) he didn’t suffer what we would have suffered. So exactly how did he pay the price if He didn’t endure what we would have had to endure?

What do you mean by he didn't suffer what we would have suffered? What have you suffered that you think his condescension didn't suffer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Chainsaw said:

Our gospel vernacular often ascribes the phrase “paid the price” in reference to the Savior’s atonement. What exactly do we think this means?

Part of the reason this has been on my mind is because we know that the consequence of our sins is spiritual death, or for that matter, eternal separation from God and no eternal redemption or divine potential. Essentially eternal damnation for all of us had there been no atonement wrought by Jesus. 


So we are told Christ paid the price…however from my view (which I concede is extremely limited) he didn’t suffer what we would have suffered. So exactly how did he pay the price if He didn’t endure what we would have had to endure?

First off, the phrase "paid the price' is not found within the scriptures...  Many times when we get into trouble, it starts by fixing onto a tangential doctrinal topic and ignoring the scriptures in order to make sense with our limited understanding.

From D&C 19:15-18 we get an inkling of the sufferings that the Savior experienced.  Focus on the statement "how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not."  We don't know what he suffered.  And we don't want to know.  I trust him in this statement. 

Spiritual Death means that we cannot go where God is.  But I'm not sure that it means that we are restricted from any of His influences.  From D&C 76:77 we learn that those that earn the Terrestrial Glory receive the presence of the Son.  And from D&C 76:86,88 we learn that those in the Telestial receive "the Holy Spirit through the ministrtation of the terrestrial" and "administering of angels."

Likely everyone in any Degree of Glory will be able to perceive the Holy Ghost, and sense the Light of Christ.

And if the Holy Ghost and Jesus have an influence that sustains us, it is highly likely that Elohim has an influence that sustatins us as well.  I think that we just don't talk about it.  And if I had to give that influence a name I would call it LOVE.  It counters the despiar that Satan tries to saddle us with.  I don't think that Elohim will withdraw his love from any of his children after the final judgement (excepting possibly those sons of perdition...). 

Finally when we look at what happened during the Atonement, we remember that Christ suffered both body and spirit (D&C 19:18).  Curiously the suffering of both body and spirit did not kill Jesus.  From Mark 15:34-37 we learn that Elohim withdrew his presence from Christ after all that He had already suffered.  And when Elohim withdrew his presence (LOVE) this is what actually killed him.

D&C 76:107 I have overcome and have trodden the wine-press alone.

I don't think that any child of God has experienced this depth of despiar other than Christ.  Nor do we have to.

 

 

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

What do you mean by he didn't suffer what we would have suffered? What have you suffered that you think his condescension didn't suffer?

Go back and read what I said again. I never stated I have suffered what the Savior suffered. I’m talking about the penalty imposed on all of us for our sins. We all would suffer never ending separation from God without an atonement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Chainsaw said:

Go back and read what I said again. I never stated I have suffered what the Savior suffered. I’m talking about the penalty imposed on all of us for our sins. We all would suffer never ending separation from God without an atonement. 

Please read my response slower. I was being general and direct. You made the following statement, which I was referencing, "he didn’t suffer what we would have suffered."

Your next statement specifies, "So exactly how did he pay the price if He didn’t endure what we would have had to endure?"

In relation to this last paragraph I asked a relative question according to what "you" said, "What have you suffered that you think his condescension didn't suffer?" You, being general or specific.

So, I will ask again, What do you think he didn't suffer or endure that you think we have suffered/endured that his condescension didn't cover"?

You have specified that he didn't endure or suffer what we have suffered or endured, what exactly are you specifying?

EDIT: The following, "I never stated I have suffered what the Savior suffered." I never said you did either, it is without question that none of us have suffered or experienced what he suffered, endured, and experienced.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chainsaw said:

Go back and read what I said again. I never stated I have suffered what the Savior suffered. I’m talking about the penalty imposed on all of us for our sins. We all would suffer never ending separation from God without an atonement. 

So you want us to understand your irritation / confusion as to what theoritically would have happened to us if Christ had not performed the Atonement? 

I’m pretty sure that your point of view is one of the main arguments that Lucifer employed to deceive the third part.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Chainsaw said:

Our gospel vernacular often ascribes the phrase “paid the price” in reference to the Savior’s atonement. What exactly do we think this means?

 

Part of the reason this has been on my mind is because we know that the consequence of our sins is spiritual death, or for that matter, eternal separation from God and no eternal redemption or divine potential. Essentially eternal damnation for all of us had there been no atonement wrought by Jesus. 
 

So we are told Christ paid the price…however from my view (which I concede is extremely limited) he didn’t suffer what we would have suffered. So exactly how did he pay the price if He didn’t endure what we would have had to endure?
 

 

The D&C explains what "eternal" means in this context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2022 at 9:07 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I am not as ardently attached to the penal substitution theory of atonement as I used to be.  But, the contradiction you cite never really bothered me—it just reiterated why nothing less than an infinite atonement was necessary and why no one less than a God could have done it.

I have felt my question most likely lies in the realm of “unknown” at this point. So far, just having a question about the atonement has been a blessing for me personally, because I have been thinking about it more. 
I’ve also thought that the answer may exist in the infinite nature of Christ’s atonement, as you have noted. So far, that feels like it comes the closest to anything that could be considered an answer. 
 

btw, what is this penal substitution theory you spoke of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chainsaw said:

I have felt my question most likely lies in the realm of “unknown” at this point. So far, just having a question about the atonement has been a blessing for me personally, because I have been thinking about it more. 
I’ve also thought that the answer may exist in the infinite nature of Christ’s atonement, as you have noted. So far, that feels like it comes the closest to anything that could be considered an answer. 
 

btw, what is this penal substitution theory you spoke of?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution.  It accords pretty strongly with LDS scripture (particularly Isaiah 53 and Alma’s sermon to Corianton), but at the moment I’m gravitating towards “penal substitution-lite” in the sense that I think the “punishment” for committing a sin tends to be simply enduring the natural consequences of that sin, rather than God inflicting some otherwise-unrelated condition upon us that is calculated to cause otherwise-unnatural pain and thereby appease the demands of justice.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to lay out a bunch of propositions without justification, because I'm too lazy to look them up.  But this illustrates how I think about the issue.  It isn't entirely scripturally backed, but because I'm me, it's obviously correct :)

Premise 1: Returning into God's presence is contingent on obeying his laws. Those who fail to do so cannot be exalted.

Premise 2: God, knowing the unlikelihood of anyone living up to standard set forth in Premise 1, proposed a plan where an intermediary could absolve others of their guilt, allowing them to regain eligibility for exaltation. The condition to be an intermediary was completing a life completely obedient to God's laws.

I think these two premises are relatively uncontroversial.  You can nitpick them if you want, but at their core, I think most of would agree to the basic concepts.

There is one thing that isn't addressed here, however.  Premise 2 establishes the conditions for eligibility to be an intermediary. But it doesn't establish the terms for becoming an intermediary. This is at the very heart of @Chainsaw's question. And as other  have stated, there is no definitive scriptural answer to this question.  

I think it is common for people to assume the Penal Substitution model. This, by my understanding, makes the assumption that every sin or misdeed is attached to a penalty. And Christ would have had to feel the weight of all of those penalties. As an adult, this model never felt right to me. In some ways, it feels like it multiplies the penalty of sin. Christ  had to experience the cumulative penalties of the sins of some 40 billion people (or whatever), but all of those people would experience those penalties at least up until the moment of their repentance?  In the case of natural consequences, perhaps even further?  It just didn't feel right to me that God's plan to give people the option of exaltation was to increase the cumulative load of suffering in humanity.

@Just_A_Guy proposes a Penal Substitution-lite model, where maybe it isn't quite so cumulative, but operates on a similar idea.  There is a certain amount of suffering required of each sin, but maybe not an additional penalty on top of the natural consequences. (I may not be fully understanding him). But I think this ultimately has the same flaw in that it marks a multiplication of a fixed amount of suffering based on the actions of each individual. I don't feel good about it.

 

I tend to view it more like this: Premise 1 gives God the rights to judgment--and his judgment is strict. Premise 2 establishes that he is willing to yield the right of judgment to another. Once the right of judgment is yielded to the intermediary, the intermediary is free to set the terms on which a person is exalted. The unanswered question, then, is what are the terms of sale of those rights.  In my mind, I suspect the terms were that Jesus, having lived all of God's laws, would be given the rights to judgment so long as he felt all of the pains that are inflicted by the sins of a person on themselves and also on others. To rephrase it, the rights to judgment were sold on the condition that Jesus would be able to have perfect empathy for anything that we feel.  

So Jesus didn't have to suffer a certain amount of pain for every loaf of bread stolen. Instead, he suffered the pain of hunger, the pain of desperation, and the pain of having the loaf of bread stolen from him; and he only needed to suffer each of those pains enough to have empathy for us. He needed to understand what makes us hurt, what makes us tick, and what factors might lead us into sin. With that empathy, he could then judge if our hearts had returned into a state of being where we no longer have a desire to do sin. 

Ultimately, even this view increases the cumulative amount of suffering. But it does so in a way that minimizes that total suffering required to reach exaltation. And the idea of a God that is interested in minimizing suffering appeals to me*. It also makes sense to me in the context of the New Testament. We read the Jesus suffered in Gethsemane through the Atonement, and we largely think of that as where all that suffering was borne to purchase the right of judgment. But then he was tortured, mocked, ridiculed.  The suffering kept going on for several more hours.  But there is this one poignant moment where, hung on the cross, Jesus cries out "Father, why have you forsaken me?" For the first and only time in his existence, Jesus was cut off from the presence of his Father. It was the one thing He had never experienced. And it was so awful, that shortly after he declared "It is finished" and allowed himself to die. In my interpretation, He didn't experience that separation once for every person that lived. He experienced it once, and exactly once. And that was enough to understand how it feels.

 

As a general principle, the price to exchange the rights to judgment can effectively be reduced to "whatever terms they agreed to." And there's a lot of interesting twists and turns you can take on that if you want to liken it to our legal system and contract law. But in the end, I don't think the specifics matter a great deal. I think it ought to be sufficient to recognize that an agreement on the transfer of those rights was struck, and part of that agreement is that we must live up to the expectations of Jesus. These expectations are that we  live God's law, and repent of our failures to the best we are able. 

 

 

* With the obvious caveat that what someone believes about God usually says more about the person than it says about God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share