It seems to
me that the broad Christian world believes that Christ died for the purpose of
paying the death penalty incurred by people because of their sins. This is not
the early teaching of Christianity though. Y’shuah himself said that the reason
he died was to ransom many (Mt 20:28;
Mk 10:45). Paul says we were bought with a price (I Co 6:20). I don’t think that
Christian literature contains the notion of penal substitution until the
writings of Anselm, a notable 11th century English cleric. His teaching,
upon which subsequent teachers have built, was that people earned death through
their sins, and that God came in the form of Jesus to pay that death penalty so
that people might live.
There are
problems with this teaching. First, did
Y’shuah really pay the penalty of sin? The Bible teaches us that “the soul that
sins, it shall die” and “the wages of sin is death”, but is this penalty paid
by the crucifixion? We still die. Wait, you say, the penalty is eternal death.
Okay, suppose it is. Jesus did not stay eternally dead. The second problem is
that it hardly makes sense that an all-powerful God can’t just forgive without
exacting a penalty. We do it all the time, and we are only human. Third, is it
reasonable that God killed himself to appease himself? Fourth, the Bible
teaches us that Christ died for all, but this would either mean that everyone
will be saved from the penalty of breaking the law, or some will not be even
though Y’shuah paid the penalty for them. I could go on, but this is a good start at
encouraging a look at the issues.
What one
believes about the atonement has to align with and probably flow from what one
believes about God (is he primarily love, or is justice paramount?), about Christ
(was he God, or was he just a good man?), about the law (is it inexorable,
exercising an unbending penalty?), and about man (are we basically good with a
capacity to make mistakes, or are we essentially evil?).
First, I think that this could be an excellent exercise in clarifying what we believe about the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. To me, the atonement is all about reconciliation. Our sins have alienated us from God - not that "He" has turned "His" back on us, but that we have turned our backs on "Him." Our sins blind us to God and "His" love. I believe that's why Christ thought that God had forsaken/abandoned him when he was hanging on the cross. The weight of our sins blinded him to the God that was still "standing" right before him.
ReplyDeleteLike the Azazel, the sins of the people were heaped on the head of Christ. He bore our sins on his head. And, also like the goat, Christ removed those sins from God's and the people's presence. In other words, he removed the very thing(s) that was/were separating us/them from God.
Death is the consequence of sin. Paul told the Romans that death is what sin earns - the wages that one receives for working sin. And, yes we all still die.
However, Christ's sacrifice makes God's gift (eternal life) possible. It frees us from the power of sin, death and the grave. In other words, sin kills us and delivers us to the grave; but Christ prevents it from holding us there. By removing the sin, Christ makes it possible for us to live again - for God to resurrect us from death.
If the sin remains, there is no reconciliation - there is no eternity WITH God. Instead, there is eternal separation/alienation from God.
What do you think?
If I understand you correctly, your thesis is two parts. First, that our sins blind us to God, and that Christ took them away so that there might be reconciliation. Second, it takes Christ’s death to make eternal life possible because his removal of our sins enables us to be resurrected. You conclude by characterizing death as separation from God.
DeleteIf these are your assertions, I can respond as follows:
Why did it take Christ’s death to remove those sins? If you do something against me, I can forgive you. I don’t need there to be a punishment. I can just forgive you, and particularly if I see that you have repented from what you did. You and I can be reconciled just by me being willing to forgive.
The question still remains: if the inevitable result of sin is death for eternity, then how does Jesus’ very temporary death satisfy that? And if sin must be followed by death, isn’t that just because God said so? Couldn’t he change that? Why is death an imperative?
I don’t agree that separation from God is death unless it is unconscious separation. There is no reason I can see that would make the meaning of the words translated in the Bible as death something other than death.
My thesis is that our sins separate us from God. They alienate us from him. I believe that has a strong scriptural basis. If this isn't the case, then how do you explain all of the scriptures that explicitly state that this is the case? Do you believe that the Old Testament Day of Atonement points to Christ? If so, how would you explain the symbolism? Do you think that the author of the epistle to the Hebrews was correct in his interpretation of that symbolism?
DeleteYou ask "Why did it take Christ's death to remove those sins?" Let's lay aside for a moment the fact that scripture says that there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood. You go on to point out that you can forgive me for sinning against you without anyone having to be punished. Are you suggesting that Christ's sacrifice/death was unnecessary?
I suppose God could have done all of this very differently. Why define sin in the first place? If there is no law, then there is no sin - right? Then there's nothing to forgive! Of course, there are laws and systems in place throughout the universe and without them there would be chaos.
Isn't Christ's death the ultimate expression of God's love for us? Isn't it a definitive statement about just how much God is willing to do to remove any stumbling blocks that might exist between us and him?
We all die, and Christ died once for all of us. What difference does it make whether he was dead for one second or for all of eternity? The past is the past. Aren't we really talking about the future? Aren't we talking about him making it possible for us to have another crack at life?
Some folks believe that bad folks go to hell when they die, and others believe that bad folks will end up in the Lake of Fire. Whatever one believes, doesn't the parable of Lazarus and the rich man make very plain that there will be an impenetrable gulf between those who have been redeemed and those who have been condemned?
I agree that the Bible teaches that our sins separate us from God (Is 59:2; Rm 3:23), though offhand, I cannot say how they do that. People attribute it to his holiness: he can’t have anything to do with sin. I don’t know that they cite any scriptures to prove their point, and Jesus certainly did rub shoulders with sin.
DeleteWe see sin even separates us from other humans. Many relationships have been demolished by sin. So it easy to see that our relationship with God could be also.
And Yes, I agree that the day of Atonement points to Christ. I think both goats do. I don’t see that the one sent away from the camp represents Satan like many teach. That is also Christ (Hb 13:11-14).
No, I am not suggesting that the shedding of the blood of the Lamb was not necessary. I am simply asking WHY it was necessary, and suggesting that it was propitiation, not substitution. You ask what difference it makes whether Jesus was dead an instant or for all time. He says greater love has no man than that he lay down his life for another. Which do you think requires a more committed love: laying down your life, knowing you will very soon be alive again, or laying down your life knowing you will stay dead? Which one do you think is the “greater love” of which he spoke?
I’ll get back to the concept of propitiation. Maybe in a community, there is a law against setting off fireworks. Maybe the penalty is a $500 fine. Let’s suppose someone ignites fireworks and suffers major burns. Further suppose that a policeman investigating the incident decides that there is no need to lay a charge because the guy has already suffered enough. His injury is propitiation.
Maybe what we have with sin is a situation where it’s like someone (in this case God) saying “As ruler, I have the right to decide what will satisfy the law. I get that staying dead is the penalty, but another major sacrifice can take the place of that. Something has to be sacrificed to underscore the seriousness of sin, but it doesn’t have to be life. Through one expression of me, Y’shuah, I will lay down my own life for a time to demonstrate how serious sin is.” In this case, Y’shuah didn’t die to take our place. Rather, his death replaces the penalty for sin. His death isn’t to appease God; it’s to demonstrate that God does not take sin lightly.
Does this make any sense?
I understand what you're saying, and I think we may be closer than our respective language in describing the atonement suggest. I'm saying that WE alienate ourselves from God - not that God ever forsakes or abandons us. It is our own psyche that erects the barrier between us and him. Hence, the need for God to tear it down - to reconcile us to him.
ReplyDeleteI don't think of Christ's sacrifice as an appeasement for anything - the Hebrew word for propitiation can also indicate that Christ took on the consequences of our sins - thus expiating them. Is it correct to look at death (eternal or otherwise) as a punishment? Is that how God looks at it, or is that how we look at it?
I think we are in agreement about symbolism surrounding the Day of Atonement. The High Priest represented Christ, and the two goats represented what he did: the shedding of his blood and the bearing of our sins away from us and God. I think Hebrews 9 and 10 are particularly good explanations of the atonement - of exactly what Christ's sacrifice accomplished. It took away/removed our sins and enabled us to have the courage to overcome our self-imposed exile and enter the Holy of Holies. And you're right - Satan has no part in that whatsoever!
If the separation that sin induces between God and us is our doing (“WE alienate ourselves from God”), then you need to explain the need for the death of the Savior. You seem to explain it in terms of the symbolism of the day of Atonement --- Christ taking our sins onto himself --- but IF the issue is us doing the separating, then what is the need for him to do that? Our sins being laid on him only makes sense if the separation is to do with God.
DeleteYou ask “Is it correct to look at death (eternal or otherwise) as a punishment?” Paul thinks so: “The wages of sin is death.”
One other issue that we should bear in mind is that sin is not a God thing. I wrote about this at http://gordon-feil-theology.blogspot.ca/2017/05/does-god-keep-his-own-commandments.html. God doesn’t keep his own commandments. They are not relevant to his existence. So, would sin be as offensive to him as the Christian world makes out? Further, sin is in the world by God’s choice. “Behold I create evil.” “The creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it in hope…” Sin was part of God’s plan. Whatever theory we have about the nature and functioning of the atonement must account for these circumstances.
I'm saying God didn't need the sacrifice, WE DID. We needed something to remove our sins from God's sight and ours. We were the ones with the problem, NOT GOD. Christ's sacrifice didn't appease an angry and vindictive God, it cleansed our consciences and enabled us to stand in his presence.
DeleteWages are what one receives for working. Wages are not a punishment (unless you work for Walmart like I do).
And I don't believe that God created sin in the same sense that you are suggesting. Why did God give us laws? Were they promulgated to keep us away from harmful behaviors and negative consequences? Or did God arbitrarily make up laws and set specific penalties which he felt fit the enumerated infractions? God did plan for sin, and I believe the atonement is the centerpiece of that plan!
HOW did that sacrifice “remove our sins from God’s sight”? Why couldn’t that removal happen without it?
DeleteHOW does that sacrifice cleanse our consciences? How has it “enabled us to stand in his presence”?
Yes, laws were given by God to veer us away from unhappy consequences, but he seems to be into aversion therapy. We learn to not sin by doing so and reaping the consequences.
It is interesting to note just how many times the KJV uses the phraseology that people did "evil in the sight of the Lord," and how He was determined to cast Israel and Judah "out of my sight." In the Psalm 51, David wrote: "Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities." (verse 9) In Psalm 103, he wrote that "As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us." (verse 12) I've already noted how the Azazel was designated to remove the people's sins from both the people's and God's presence.
DeleteSacrifices aren't for God - they're for us. God doesn't need sacrifices - we do. It is our psyche that needs to appease. We simply cannot imagine forgiveness without something/someone paying for the sin. It is our notions about justice that demand this (Thank God that we aren't judging each other!).
As for how the sacrifice cleanses our consciences, read Hebrews 9 and 10 again. However, this single verse provides a good summary: "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (9:14)
“We simply cannot imagine forgiveness without something/someone paying for the sin.” I disagree. If someone slights me and then pays for it, what need is there for forgiveness? Forgiveness is letting them off the hook. And I have often forgiven people with no need that anyone pay for their sin. Mercy is better than justice.
DeleteI agree that the sacrifice is needed by us, but I question that the need is the one you are suggesting.
Yes, Hebrews 9 presents an argument. In verse 15, we are told that Christ died for the “redemption” of transgression. To me, redemption means a payment made for the purpose of taking delivery of something (back to the ransom idea), or alternatively, to compensate for the bad aspects of something. I think in this case we can dismiss the second definition because this isn’t about balancing the scales. The first definition implies a ransom, but from what? “of transgression”. If we translate para as “from” instead of “of”, the verse makes more sense. He ransomed us from sin. His death was to put us into a situation where sin did not claim us.
But how is that? I have some ideas about that, but Paul (whom I think wrote Hebrews) goes on in verses 16 and 17 to make a new argument, and it is just a word play! He suddenly turns the covenant, which was theretofore treated as a contract between two parties, into a testament: Christ had to die before the testament could come into force. Now, maybe to the logic of that writer’s time and place, this seems like a powerful argument, but to me it seems baffling.
By the way, he goes on in verses 18-22 to remind us that the sign of the old covenant was blood. Many claim it was the Sabbath; it was not.
In chapter 10, Paul explains that sacrifices don’t remove sin. What removes sin is to not be doing it (verses 16-17) and receiving forgiveness (verse 18).
How then does this the ransom (redemption) of Hebrews 9:15 tie into the notion of forgiveness? Is the answer in 10:18-22? Read in light of 4:15 (“he was tempted in all points”), I wonder if his death is part of the process of fully being human. He is able to serve as high priest for humans because he was human and fully understands us, including death.
And, as high priest, he leads us into repentance away from sin, which then makes us forgivable. He ransoms us from sin by changing our lives, but is able to do that by reason of his human experience including death. And his death is so remarkable (he was God) that it serves as a substitute for the death penalty of sin. It doesn’t pay the penalty, but it removes the need for the penalty by giving us a high priest who is leading us into a position of repentance in which God can reasonably forgive us.
How does this sit with you?
Allow me to approach this from a different angle. Do you believe that God needs or requires the taking of life, the spilling of blood, to satisfy "His" sense of justice? Did God need all of those animal sacrifices delineated in the Law of Moses? Weren't those sacrifices instituted for the people? And what did those sacrifices really accomplish? Did those sacrifices appease God's wrath? Did Christ die for us? OR Did he die for God? Why would God need to offer a part of himself to satisfy himself? Did Christ take our place, take on our sins, take on our penalty (choose the wording that best suits you) to satisfy some need of God Almighty? What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI don’t think he took on our penalty at all. I think he made it possible to do away with the penalty as I have just now explained in my above post.
DeleteNo, I don’t see God saying “I’m so mad at their sins, I’m going to kill myself……There! I feel better now!”
Check this out:
ReplyDeletehttp://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2017/08/a-closer-look-at-christs-atonement.html
My apologies for the late response, but I have now responded to your blog at your blog.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that God requires a blood sacrifice for himself is repugnant. God could have easily just forgiven us, but what would we learn from that?
ReplyDeleteOur whole reason here is to "learn obedience through the things which we suffer" and not just because God demands obedience. God could force us to obey by not even giving us the option to disobey, but again, what would we learn from that?
God didn't say of Israel, "oh that they would obey me", no, he said, "oh that they had the heart to obey me", big difference.
Our obedience or disobedience does nothing for or against God, neither effect him. It's all for our benefit.
We are here to learn to hate sin, what it does to ourselves and what it does to others.
I don't believe that Jesus' death was something that "appeased" an angry God, nor was it a "replacement" for our death. It's purpose was to help us to immortalize in our hearts and minds the evil of sin and it's consequences.
This whole world, everything that we're going through is how God is creating in us Holy Righteous character.
Kevin McMillen
kljcmc@gmail.com