How Does God Die "For" Sin

[lamikin]

When theologians describe trying to describe the Mystery of the Atonement, they often speak of "Atonement Theories", there have been a number proposed and described, either explicitly or implicitly, over the last two thousand years.

Chronologically, the most common Atonement Theories are these:

Recapitulation Theory (2nd century)
Ransom Theory (3rd century)
Satisfaction Theory (11th century)
Moral Influence Theory (11th century, but just about unanimously rejected in its time)
Penal Substitution Theory (16th century, based on Satisfaction Theory)
Christus Victor Theory (20th century, but is a revival of the Recapitulation and Ransom Theories)

-CryptoLutheran

Hi Cryto,

I looked up the first theory and it says:


"The recapitulation theory of the atonement states that Christ experienced all the phases of Adam's life including the experience of sin. This theory maintains that Christ succeeded where Adam failed.

The problem here is that the Bible tells us that Jesus never sinned (1 Peter 2:22;1 John 3:5). Also, the failure of Adam was to sin. If Jesus experienced sin, then he too failed."

The theory is wrong.

 

[Knee V]

Hi Cryto,

I looked up the first theory and it says:


"The recapitulation theory of the atonement states that Christ experienced all the phases of Adam's life including the experience of sin. This theory maintains that Christ succeeded where Adam failed.

The problem here is that the Bible tells us that Jesus never sinned (1 Peter 2:22;1 John 3:5). Also, the failure of Adam was to sin. If Jesus experienced sin, then he too failed."

The theory is wrong.

Your source is wrong.

Here is a better explanation: Recapitulation theory of atonement - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

We're generally better off not using CARM.

 

[Knee V]

When theologians describe trying to describe the Mystery of the Atonement, they often speak of "Atonement Theories", there have been a number proposed and described, either explicitly or implicitly, over the last two thousand years.

Chronologically, the most common Atonement Theories are these:

Recapitulation Theory (2nd century)
Ransom Theory (3rd century)
Satisfaction Theory (11th century)
Moral Influence Theory (11th century, but just about unanimously rejected in its time)
Penal Substitution Theory (16th century, based on Satisfaction Theory)
Christus Victor Theory (20th century, but is a revival of the Recapitulation and Ransom Theories)

Many theologians have also argued that it isn't necessary to see one theory to the exclusion of others; and that all of the extant Atonement Theories draw from different biblical language to describe the Atonement itself.

The fact that there have been so many ways and means of Christians trying to tackle this transcendent mystery should, at the very least, allow us to see at just how profound and transcendent the mystery is.

Something truly cosmically awesome transpired on Mt. Calvary, and we have--in the wake of that Event--been ever grasping to wrap our heads around it and trying to articulate it.

My recommendation is to look over the various views of the Atonement, read Scripture, and pursue understanding how and why the Christian Church has in various times and places sought to articulate the Mystery in these many ways.

Personally I subscribe to Christus Victor Theory, as I believe it speaks the loudest and most clearly concerning the biblical message and echoes the most ancient Christian language of the Atonement. I see some merit in the Satisfaction Theory, if perhaps only minimally, but in general view Penal Substitution as almost completely unacceptable, if only because the theological ramifications of the Theory, especially as popularly communicated today, are quite atrocious; presenting the chief obstacle to our salvation to be not Sin and Death, but God Himself. But this is a position I've come to only after many years.

-CryptoLutheran

C.S. Lewis had some great insight into this issue in his book "Mere Christianity". It was two paragraphs from that book that paved the way for me to be able to reject Penal Substitution (although I do recognize that there is value in seeing it as an analogy).

In a nutshell, Lewis makes the case that the explanation of the thing is not the thing itself. Over time we come up with new ways to explain a given thing, but the changing explanations do nothing to the reality of the thing itself. He uses the analogy of eating. There have been various explanations throughout the course of human history as to why eating is good. For instance, many in the past would have thought that we gain the life force of what we ate, thus giving us strength. Nowadays, we tend to hold to the idea that there are various proteins and minerals and acids and such that our bodies need that are found in the food we eat. Either way, no matter what explanation we use, everyone can agree from experience that eating is good for us.

It is the same with the cross. We know that Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection benefit us. We may come up with hundreds of explanations of why it benefits us, but those explanations can only serve as analogies. But either way, those in Christ know that it is good to be in Christ.

 

[Knee V]

And I appreciate you asking this question. In many circles it is automatically assumed that "for" means "instead of" without giving it a second thought, or considering the possibility that it could mean something else.

Not only that, but in many circles when you say that Christ "died" for us, they generally tend to automatically take that to mean that He "was punished" for us without giving it a second thought, or considering the possibility that it could mean something else.

So what tends to happen is the phrase "Christ died for us" turns into the phrase "Christ was punished instead of us". But again, that assumes that "died" means "was punished" and "for" means "instead of". But how about this as one example: "Christ experienced all the effects of sin on behalf of us."

 

[lamikin]

Your source is wrong.

In reality it doesn't really make any difference who's source is right, what is important is what the bible says.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In reality it doesn't really make any difference who's source is right, what is important is what the bible says.

Agreed. And Recapitulation Theory is saturated with Scripture--where Adam failed because of disobedience, bringing sin and death into the world; Christ undid Adam's disobedience because of obedience, destroying the power of sin and death and bringing resurrection from the dead. This is simply a formal articulation of what St. Paul says several times in his letters.

Where whether a source is right or not is if it is describing a thing accurately. In this case your source is wrong, and fails at describing what it seeks to describe.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[sonhador]

It's so common a phrase in Christianity that it's pased me by much of my life. It must have some surreal, metaphysical, hyper-dimensional meaning....because with the standard phrasing in the NT it really doesn't compute. I get that only God can deal finally with sin....but what does it mean...bottom line...."Jesus died for our sins?" Emphasis is on the word "For". How can God take the place of sin (evil), and where does the sin go? Philosophical answers very welcome.

What it means is, he could have lived selling furniture and gone unnoticed.
But instead he died selling what he loved.

Love.

If you buy it, you buy the man who sold it very expensively.
Because if you do not buy it, you will never learn how to also sell what you have bought.

If you do not die for what you love, you cannot create a name for what you love.

If you do not create a name for what you love, in fame for what you love,
you cannot return to the same love.

If there was no death that created a religion, there would be no rebirth.
If there was no Jesus to be remembered.
There will be no Jesus to return.

If there is no Jesus to return.
Humanity will lose itself.

Because humanity does not know.
The way to save humanity.

Jesus knows.
If you know Jesus.
You would also want to save humanity.

I am not sure humanity wants to save itself.
Otherwise humanity would see above humanity, to whom is here to save it.

But to save humanity, you would need the perfect heist.
Because humanity already believes it is saved.

Humanity would need to leave their window open.
Rather than change the locks on their doors.

God takes the place of sin, by being God in your eyes.
If God is sin in your eyes, God never has a place.

God is love. And love can exist in a body.
If you can find a body worth that of God, first you must find eyes worth that of seeing, and ears worth that of hearing.

Words worth that of adoring.
Humility worth that of child,

Otherwise, you will never see how God can provide restitution for all, by the means of restitution for himself.
You will never see a rapture, unless you see the reality of what you are waiting for.
You will never see Heaven, unless you see the one who brings it. The one who owns it.

If Heaven's allegiance is to the Earth, where is Earth's will to Heaven? When the creation above comes below, when the sun shines on the earth, where are the watchers for the light?

If a fire is raised, and a trumpet is sounded, where is the symphony? How can a trumpet say it is a trumpet, without the saxophone to remind you how blunt the sound can be? What use is a dragon that fell from the sky, if the dragon cannot again fly?

Why create a religion that does not know when the owner has returned?
Why raise a banner when you cannot raise it up again?
Why speak when the voice is not heard?

Why die for sins when you cannot rise from the death?

I do not have the answers. The Christians have the answers, but they have not yet answered it, by seeing the answer that is in front of them.

When you raise up the son of man. Then you will see God take the final place of sin.
But if you are not watching, you will not see what to raise up.
Because a stone cannot raise a building all by itself.
It needs the foundation of the earth.
The seed it sowed to reap the harvest that all have waited for.

Yet never will a time come, until the right time can be seen.

When you grow a tree, you do not wait for the fruit by looking up at it.
You watch the ground where it falls and pick it up and eat it.
When you bight into it, you do not spit it out if it tastes good.
If you see a lemon that looks like an apple, you think it an apple.
If it tastes like a lemon you will spit it out, and still think it an apple.

If Jesus looked like an apple, how would you ever see him if he was a lemon?

If God looked like a lemon, how would you ever see him if he was an apple?

If God was here. Jesus would be here. If Jesus was here, God is on his way.
But all I see, is Christians who cannot see either.

So if Christians cannot see either. Then today I cannot see one Christian.
Because if they were Christians, they would see at least see a lemon, and upon seeing a lemon, they would shout for joy in the streets, in knowing where the apple came from.

Where is the faith?
If Jesus could not find it in his time, how will he find it when he returns?
If he cannot find it when he returns, how will those he told to recognise him to his rightful place, bring him to his rightful place, if they are too busy looking to who amongst them is more righteous?

How is one era different from another? If the Jews could not see the one they came from, how will the Christians see the one they came from when he comes again?
How will ever a sheep know how and why their shepherd died for them, if they cannot see how and why they die in their own sins?

Asking questions to Christians about Christ, is like asking Jews questions about God.
Both already have all the answers to what you ask them, so therefore they have no teachers, for which they claim to have the answers.

If you want to ask questions about Christ you should ask only Christ. If you want to ask questions about God you should ask only God. But if you cannot see Jesus or God, then you may as well ask yourself, before you ask anyone else.

 

[lamikin]

and where does the sin go?

bhar,

You asked "where does sin go"? I know that Harry 3142 touched on the concept of the "scapegoat" but I don't think that sin is a tangible thing, if it were then the scapegoat would probably have been spreading sin wherever it went.

The scapegoat was more of a symbolic thing it didn't really become sin. It is the same thing with the passover lamb, it suffered instead of the partakers. If the lamb had become sin the family couldn't have eaten it.

You also have the "Red Heifer" ceremony where it was killed and burnt to ashes as a sin offering. The ashes were mixed with pure spring water and used to to purify the people of their ritualistic sins. The ashes were also used for all manner of purification for the holiest affairs of the Temple.

If the ashes had really become sin they could never have been used for purification.

Sin is the word used to denote disobedience to God and it's consequences.

 

[LemonAidStand]

It's so common a phrase in Christianity that it's pased me by much of my life. It must have some surreal, metaphysical, hyper-dimensional meaning....because with the standard phrasing in the NT it really doesn't compute. I get that only God can deal finally with sin....but what does it mean...bottom line...."Jesus died for our sins?" Emphasis is on the word "For". How can God take the place of sin (evil), and where does the sin go? Philosophical answers very welcome.

When we die. Our flesh dies. But we are spirit. The spirit goes on into the after life.. Just as the bible tells us of the dead.. Before the cross. All those that passed away. Went to haydes.. The heirs of the promise to the bossom of Abraham(paradise).. The rest to another part of haydes to await the judgement.. Then haydes will be cast into hell. After the cross we read in revelation that those that have gone ahead of us are patiently awaiting the completion of God's plan.. These are spoken of as being with the Lord now.. So we can be certain that the spirit does not die when the flesh does. So ehen Jesus went to the cross. His flesh died.. But the Spirit lives on.. If you read the entire text on that acct. you will find that it explains it quite clearly.. Even little children understand this truth.. Read your bible..