Did Jesus have to go through all the brutal suffering to atone us?

[zoidar]

This question came up the other day in a thread. Did Jesus have to go through all the brutal suffering for our atonement? Or was it his death and resurrection that is the atoning part? In that case why the torture? And if it all was part of Jesus taking our punishment, when did that start? Allready when Herod made fun of him? Or was it when they started to physically mistreat him?

Do we have any NT texts that show the torments of Jesus was necessary for our sins to be wiped out?

 

[royal priest]

By His stripes we are healed. He was bruised for our iniquities.

 

[zoidar]

By His stripes we are healed. He was bruised for our iniquities.

That's Isaiah 53? Is there anything similar in the NT?

 

[Aussie Pete]

This question came up the other day in a thread. Did Jesus have to go through all the brutal suffering for our atonement? Or was it his death and resurrection that is the atoning part? In that case why the torture? And if it all was part of Jesus taking our punishment, when did that start? Allready when Herod made fun of him? Or was it when they started to physically mistreat him?

Do we have any NT texts that show the torments of Jesus was necessary for our sins to be wiped out?

Yes. 1 Peter 2:21-25 also, 1 Corinthians 15:3. "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures." The scriptures that speak of the death of Christ are found in Isaiah 53. The suffering and sorrow of God's servant (obviously Lord Jesus) are stated in that passage. Every aspect of His suffering relates to a sinful aspect of fallen man:

1. The feet that take men to do evil in the sight of God were pierced by nails.
2. The hands that perform evil acts also were pierced.
3. The back that man shows God as he turns away was laid open by the scourge
4. The sinful heart of man was pierced by the spear that pierced the Lord Jesus
5. The mind that thinks wicked thoughts was afflicted with the crown of thorns.
6. The haughty look on man's face was disfigured more than any other man
7. The mockery of men was heaped on the innocent Lord Jesus
8. Lord Jesus died the death that men should suffer because of their wickedness

If you want to know how much God hates sin, look at Christ on the cross. If you want to know how much God loves sinners, look at Christ on the cross.

God needed to do more than just forgive sins. He needed to rid the sinner of the nature that causes him to sin. So those who are born again are crucified with Christ so that the sinful nature is dead with Him. Then those who are born again are raised with Christ so that they have new life, life that comes out of death. If any man is in Christ, he is a new creation - right now. He does not have to wait until he dies physically or until Jesus comes back.

 

[disciple Clint]

This question came up the other day in a thread. Did Jesus have to go through all the brutal suffering for our atonement? Or was it his death and resurrection that is the atoning part? In that case why the torture? And if it all was part of Jesus taking our punishment, when did that start? Allready when Herod made fun of him? Or was it when they started to physically mistreat him?

Do we have any NT texts that show the torments of Jesus was necessary for our sins to be wiped out?

"The atonement of Christ, its purpose and what it accomplished, is such a rich subject that volumes have been written about it. This article will simply provide a brief overview of many of the theories that have been put forward at one time or another. In looking at the different views of the atonement, we must remember that any view that does not recognize the sinfulness of man or the substitutionary nature of the atonement is deficient at best and heretical at worst.

Ransom to Satan: This view sees the atonement of Christ as a ransom paid to Satan to purchase man’s freedom and release him from being enslaved to Satan. It is based on a belief that man’s spiritual condition is bondage to Satan and that the meaning of Christ’s death was to secure God’s victory over Satan. This theory has little, if any, scriptural support and has had few supporters throughout church history. It is unbiblical in that it sees Satan, rather than God, as the one who required that a payment be made for sin. Thus, it completely ignores the demands of God’s justice as seen throughout Scripture. It also has a higher view of Satan than it should and views him as having more power than he really does. There is no scriptural support for the idea that sinners owe anything to Satan, but throughout Scripture we see that God is the One who requires a payment for sin.

Recapitulation Theory: This theory states that the atonement of Christ has reversed the course of mankind from disobedience to obedience. It believes that Christ’s life recapitulated all the stages of human life and in doing so reversed the course of disobedience initiated by Adam. This theory cannot be supported scripturally.

Dramatic Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as securing the victory in a divine conflict between good and evil and winning man’s release from bondage to Satan. The meaning of Christ’s death was to ensure God’s victory over Satan and to provide a way to redeem the world out of its bondage to evil.

Mystical Theory: The mystical theory sees the atonement of Christ as a triumph over His own sinful nature through the power of the Holy Spirit. Those who hold this view believe that knowledge of this will mystically influence man and awake his “god-consciousness.” They also believe that man’s spiritual condition is not the result of sin but simply a lack of “god-consciousness.” Clearly, this is unbiblical. To believe this, one must believe that Christ had a sin nature, while Scripture is clear that Jesus was the perfect God-man, sinless in every aspect of His nature (Hebrews 4:15).

Moral Influence Theory: This is the belief that the atonement of Christ is a demonstration of God’s love which causes man’s heart to soften and repent. Those who hold this view believe that man is spiritually sick and in need of help and that man is moved to accept God’s forgiveness by seeing God’s love for man. They believe that the purpose and meaning of Christ’s death was to demonstrate God’s love toward man. While it is true that Christ’s atonement is the ultimate example of the love of God, this view is unbiblical because it denies the true spiritual condition of man—dead in transgressions and sins (Ephesians 2:1)—and denies that God actually requires a payment for sin. This view of Christ’s atonement leaves mankind without a true sacrifice or payment for sin.

Example Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as simply providing an example of faith and obedience to inspire man to be obedient to God. Those who hold this view believe that man is spiritually alive and that Christ’s life and atonement were simply an example of true faith and obedience and should serve as inspiration to men to live a similar life of faith and obedience. This and the moral influence theory are similar in that they both deny that God’s justice actually requires payment for sin and that Christ’s death on the cross was that payment. The main difference between the moral influence theory and the example theory is that the moral influence theory says that Christ’s death teaches us how much God loves us and the example theory says that Christ’s death teaches how to live. Of course, it is true that Christ is an example for us to follow, even in His death, but the example theory fails to recognize man’s true spiritual condition and that God’s justice requires payment for sin which man is not capable of paying.

Commercial Theory: The commercial theory views the atonement of Christ as bringing infinite honor to God. This resulted in God giving Christ a reward which He did not need, and Christ passed that reward on to man. Those who hold this view believe that man’s spiritual condition is that of dishonoring God and so Christ’s death, which brought infinite honor to God, can be applied to sinners for salvation. This theory, like many of the others, denies the true spiritual state of unregenerate sinners and their need of a completely new nature, available only in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Governmental Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as demonstrating God’s high regard for His law and His attitude toward sin. It is through Christ’s death that God has a reason to forgive the sins of those who repent and accept Christ’s substitutionary death. Those who hold this view believe that man’s spiritual condition is as one who has violated God’s moral law and that the meaning of Christ’s death was to be a substitute for the penalty of sin. Because Christ paid the penalty for sin, it is possible for God to legally forgive those who accept Christ as their substitute. This view falls short in that it does not teach that Christ actually paid the penalty of the actual sins of any people, but instead His suffering simply showed mankind that God’s laws were broken and that some penalty was paid.

Penal Substitution Theory: This theory sees the atonement of Christ as being a vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied the demands of God’s justice upon sin. With His sacrifice, Christ paid the penalty of man’s sin, bringing forgiveness, imputing righteousness, and reconciling man to God. Those who hold this view believe that every aspect of man—his mind, will, and emotions—have been corrupted by sin and that man is totally depraved and spiritually dead. This view holds that Christ’s death paid the penalty for sin and that through faith man can accept Christ’s substitution as payment for sin. This view of the atonement aligns most accurately with Scripture in its view of sin, the nature of man, and the results of the death of Christ on the cross." What are the various theories on the atonement? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Albion]

This question came up the other day in a thread. Did Jesus have to go through all the brutal suffering for our atonement?

We don't often think of the doings of Christ in this way, but when we realize it, time and again what he did made its point known through the sights and sounds and etc. of our physical world, so that it would "make sense" to us.

To be sure, God could simply have commanded something and made it all happen, almost or completely without us seeing or understanding any of it.

He didn't choose to do that, but instead brought the meaning home to us in the world in which we live and understand events and their consequences. For example, water wouldn't really be necessary in baptism except that the image of washing away one's sins and old ways was known to the first Christians and had meaning to them, so that is how Christ inaugurated Christian baptism.

 

[BBAS 64]

This question came up the other day in a thread. Did Jesus have to go through all the brutal suffering for our atonement? Or was it his death and resurrection that is the atoning part? In that case why the torture? And if it all was part of Jesus taking our punishment, when did that start? Allready when Herod made fun of him? Or was it when they started to physically mistreat him?

Do we have any NT texts that show the torments of Jesus was necessary for our sins to be wiped out?

Good Day,

You have created a false dichotomy....

"have you not read what was spoken of in the prophets"?


In Him,

Bill

 

[Tolworth John]

This question came up the other day in a thread. Did Jesus have to go through all the brutal suffering for our atonement? Or was it his death and resurrection that is the atoning part? In that case why the torture? And if it all was part of Jesus taking our punishment, when did that start? Allready when Herod made fun of him? Or was it when they started to physically mistreat him?

Do we have any NT texts that show the torments of Jesus was necessary for our sins to be wiped out?

Jesus suffering shows just how serious sin is.
Try Romans 5 for why he suffered.

 

[d taylor]

When God chose the payment for mans sin in Genesis, He chose blood. So there had to be the shedding of blood for The Messiah.

 

[royal priest]

That's Isaiah 53? Is there anything similar in the NT?

1 Peter 2:24
He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

 

[UnpopularOpinion]

This question came up the other day in a thread. Did Jesus have to go through all the brutal suffering for our atonement? Or was it his death and resurrection that is the atoning part? In that case why the torture? And if it all was part of Jesus taking our punishment, when did that start? Allready when Herod made fun of him? Or was it when they started to physically mistreat him?

Do we have any NT texts that show the torments of Jesus was necessary for our sins to be wiped out?

just death is the atoning part , resurrection is just perk
like lambs which were slain he was slain for sins

 

[zoidar]

Good Day,

You have created a false dichotomy....

"have you not read what was spoken of in the prophets"?


In Him,

Bill

Hi Bill,

I can accept that if you show me how it's a false dichotomy.

 

[Eilat]

Did Jesus have to go through all the brutal suffering for our atonement? Or was it his death and resurrection that is the atoning part?

Well to begin with, .."without the shedding of BLOOD there is no remission, no pardon and no salvation".
So, you left that out, when you said....>"was it just the death and resurrection".
See, unless the Blood was shed, there is no BLOOD ATONEMENT. = No Salvation.

All in all, what Jesus suffered = "being marred beyond recognition".
Christ was scourged, then he carried the Cross for a while, then was nailed to it.

So, all of that and more is the "CUP"< that Jesus was talking to His Father about, in the Garden.
That Cup was unbelievable.
And Jesus SAW IT, all His life. He knew it was coming, all His life. He is God, He had foreknowledge of this event, before He was the "bread sent down from heaven".

When Jesus was in the Garden some of the Heavenly Host came to be with Him, to support Him, because this was overwhelming.
The Stress He felt caused small blood vessels in His face to pop, burst, and bleed, and this blood dripped off his face like sweat.
That is the Living and Loving CHRIST knowing what is about to happen to Him, and submitting to it.
That is what it was like for Him to do "God's Will".. so that we can be SAVED and go to Heaven.
This is Jesus's amazing love for us, and His desire to do His Father's will, causing him to have this extreme physical reaction.

That suffering was God's wrath poured out against Sin.
He was judging Sin, ON Jesus.
Unbelievers do not realize that God's wrath against sin is that extreme.
The do not realize that they are : John 3:36

 

[d taylor]

Jesus did not just shed blood, He was beaten to the extreme, i am sure no other human could have survived.

Just as many were astonished at you, So His visage was marred more than any man,
And His form more than the sons of men;

People look at these painting and see a lie.

Christ on the cross old master paintings - Google Search

But Rembrandt was closer to what Christ body looked like with this painting of a side of beef.

​

 

[bling]

This question came up the other day in a thread. Did Jesus have to go through all the brutal suffering for our atonement? Or was it his death and resurrection that is the atoning part? In that case why the torture? And if it all was part of Jesus taking our punishment, when did that start? Allready when Herod made fun of him? Or was it when they started to physically mistreat him?

Do we have any NT texts that show the torments of Jesus was necessary for our sins to be wiped out?

Atonement is a huge topic with mean conflicting ideas and theories. The popular theories are still only theories because they all have huge issues.

From your question you there is a big issue: Is Jesus providing atonement or is Jesus just the atonement sacrifice and the atonement process is much greater with humans having an active part to play?


Atonement is much more then the sacrifice itself, it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process. The Jews at Christ’s time would have had first hand knowledge of atonement through personal sin offerings. These sin offerings were for very minor sins (unintentional sins almost accidental sins). All the elements and the full process is there, but unintentional sins are so much less grievous then bold rebellious disobedience directly against God, it is hard to go from one to the other, but it seems to very related.

We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).

The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.

Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.

Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).

Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the shepherd of, for hours waiting in line to get to the priest and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship.

We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

Please think up some questions to ask me.


Ransom payment for all:

The reason the ransom payment is available for all and yet some children are not set free is because most kidnapper refuse this huge ransom payment.

Think about it like this:

When we talk to nonbelievers, we are not trying to get them to believe some book, words, doctrine or philosophy, but we want them to accept through faith Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If that nonbeliever trust (has faith) in Christ and Him crucified, a child is released and allowed to enter the kingdom where God the Father is, but if the nonbeliever refuses for lack of faith in Jesus Christ and Him crucified, a child is not set free to go to the Father. That nonbeliever is a perfect example of a criminal kidnapper and fully undeserving of Jesus Christ and him Crucified, which is what Christ and others say is the ransom payment.

God is not a criminal undeserving kidnapper holding His own children and satan is not changeable or has the power to hold God’s child back from God, so the unbeliever is the only excellent fit for the kidnapper in the atonement process.

Christ went to the cross not to do something for God since God needs nothing and is not lacking anything especially the Love to forgive you. The “problem” is with me excepting what Christ did “for” (as a benefit to help me) me and accepting (the blame) because of me, so I can experience being crucified with Christ for my sins (a fair/just disciplining).

 

[zoidar]

Atonement is a huge topic with mean conflicting ideas and theories. The popular theories are still only theories because they all have huge issues.

From your question you there is a big issue: Is Jesus providing atonement or is Jesus just the atonement sacrifice and the atonement process is much greater with humans having an active part to play?


Atonement is much more then the sacrifice itself, it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process. The Jews at Christ’s time would have had first hand knowledge of atonement through personal sin offerings. These sin offerings were for very minor sins (unintentional sins almost accidental sins). All the elements and the full process is there, but unintentional sins are so much less grievous then bold rebellious disobedience directly against God, it is hard to go from one to the other, but it seems to very related.

We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).

The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.

Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.

Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).

Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the shepherd of, for hours waiting in line to get to the priest and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship.

We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

Please think up some questions to ask me.


Ransom payment for all:

The reason the ransom payment is available for all and yet some children are not set free is because most kidnapper refuse this huge ransom payment.

Think about it like this:

When we talk to nonbelievers, we are not trying to get them to believe some book, words, doctrine or philosophy, but we want them to accept through faith Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If that nonbeliever trust (has faith) in Christ and Him crucified, a child is released and allowed to enter the kingdom where God the Father is, but if the nonbeliever refuses for lack of faith in Jesus Christ and Him crucified, a child is not set free to go to the Father. That nonbeliever is a perfect example of a criminal kidnapper and fully undeserving of Jesus Christ and him Crucified, which is what Christ and others say is the ransom payment.

God is not a criminal undeserving kidnapper holding His own children and satan is not changeable or has the power to hold God’s child back from God, so the unbeliever is the only excellent fit for the kidnapper in the atonement process.

Christ went to the cross not to do something for God since God needs nothing and is not lacking anything especially the Love to forgive you. The “problem” is with me excepting what Christ did “for” (as a benefit to help me) me and accepting (the blame) because of me, so I can experience being crucified with Christ for my sins (a fair/just disciplining).

The Bible never uses the expression "punished for our sins" but "bore our sins", also "be sin".

and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross...
— 1 Peter 2:24

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf...
— 2 Corinthians 5:21

The "reward" for sin is death.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
— Romans 6:23

We are all going to be judged. So if we are judged by God, then He is also the one to give us the right reward/punishment. So sin is going to be punished. Is it then wrong to say that Jesus was punished for our sins?

... For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
— Romans 14:10

Someone that has power to forgive sins, that is someone to be feared. How mighty is not such a one?

But there is forgiveness with You,
That You may be feared.
— Psalm 130:4

 

[bling]

The Bible never uses the expression "punished for our sins" but "bore our sins", also "be sin".

and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross...
— 1 Peter 2:24

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf...
— 2 Corinthians 5:21

The "reward" for sin is death.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
— Romans 6:23

We are all going to be judged. So if we are judged by God, then He is also the one to give us the right reward/punishment. So sin is going to be punished. Is it then wrong to say that Jesus was punished for our sins?

... For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
— Romans 14:10

Someone that has power to forgive sins, that is someone to be feared. How mighty is not such a one?

But there is forgiveness with You,
That You may be feared.
— Psalm 130:4

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying, but would go much further.

We are the ones who need to be disciplined:
Dr. Dobson would say: “You discipline your children and never punish your children”.

Think about this:

There is a, one of a kind, Tiffany vase on your parent’s mantel that has been handed down by your great grandmother. You, as a young person, get angry with your parents and smash the vase. You are later sorry about it and repent and your loving parent can easily forgive you. Since this was not your first rebellious action your father, in an act of Love, collects every little piece of the vase and you willingly work together with your father hours each night for a month painstakingly gluing the vase back together. The vase is returned to the mantel to be kept as a show piece, but according to Antique Road Show, it is worthless. Working with your father helped you develop a much stronger relationship, comfort in being around him and appreciation for his Love.

Was your father fair/just and would others see this as being fair treatment? Did this “punishment” help resolve the issue?

Was restitution made or was reconciliation made and would you feel comfortable/ justified standing by your father in the future?

Suppose after smashing the vase, repenting and forgiveness, your older brother says he will work with your father putting the vase together, so you can keep up with your social life. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

Suppose Jesus the magician waved his hands over the smashed vase and restored it perfectly to the previous condition, so there is really very little for you to be forgiven of or for you to do. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

What are the benefits of being lovingly disciplined?

Suppose it is not you that breaks the vase but your neighbor breaks into your house because he does not like your family being so nice and smashes the Tiffany vase, but he is caught on a security camera. Your father goes to your neighbor with the box of pieces and offers to do the same thing with him as he offered to do with you, but the neighbor refuses. Your father explains: everything is caught on camera and he will be fined and go to jail, but the neighbor, although sorry about being caught, still refuses. The neighbor loses all he has and spends 10 years in jail. So was the neighbor fairly disciplined or fairly punished?

How does the neighbor’s punishment equal your discipline and how is it not equal?

Was the neighbor forgiven and if not why not?

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished... (Rom. 3:25, NIV)

This verse does provide a lot of information about how sins prior to Christ going to the cross were handled.

First off: Paul is giving the extreme contrast between the way sins where handle prior to the cross and after the cross, so if they were actually handled the same way “by the cross” there would be no contrast, just a time factor, but Paul said (forgiven) sins prior to the cross where left “unpunished”, but that also means the forgiven “sinner” after the cross were punished.

From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …

Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive that ransom. A lack of faith results in the refusal of the ransom payment (Christ crucified).

God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor is satan, but the unbeliever himself is holding back the child of God from the Father, that child that is within every one of us.

Paul goes on to explain:

Ro. 3: 25 …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

I do not like the word “unpunished” but would use “undisciplined” (you discipline your children and do not punish your children).

So prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for their rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.

If you think about the crucifixion, you would realize, at the time Christ was on the cross, God in heaven out of empathy/Love for Christ would be experience an even greater pain than Christ. We as our Love grows and our realization of what we personally caused Christ to go through will feel a death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37). We will experience the greatest pain we could experience and still live, which is the way God is disciplining us today and for all the right reasons because Loving discipline correctly accepted results in a wondrous relationship with our parent. (We can now comfortably feel justified before God.)

God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I, who needs that blood outside of Christ to flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me.

 

[BobRyan]

This question came up the other day in a thread. Did Jesus have to go through all the brutal suffering for our atonement? Or was it his death and resurrection that is the atoning part? In that case why the torture? And if it all was part of Jesus taking our punishment, when did that start? Allready when Herod made fun of him? Or was it when they started to physically mistreat him?

Do we have any NT texts that show the torments of Jesus was necessary for our sins to be wiped out?

It started in the Garden of Eden as Christ sweat great drops of blood and fell dying to the Earth. That was Christ as he started to pay the price of the second death and debt of suffering owed by every human for each and every sin committed.

It was interrupted by the mob which God "allowed" so that humans could get a "faint" clouded window via external suffering - of the super massive greater internal spiritual suffering paying our debt of torment and suffering in the lake of fire (in the case of sinners).

There will be no Jews "mocking sinners" and no Romans soldiers "torturing sinners" in fiery hell, in the "lake of fire". Each person will be tormented directly by the fire and brimstone .. the eternal fire of God. Christ's outward torment was merely to "make more clear" to the observer his much greater inward torment.