What is redemption? How is redemptive suffering not an unjust whipping boy?

[AetheriusLamia]

St. John Paul II teaches that through our suffering we can share in Jesus' redemptive suffering and thereby help others achieve salvation.

J. Sollier defines redemption as either 1) paying a ransom price for sin or 2) atonement for an offense.

Together this raises two questions:

1. How is redemptive suffering not an unjust whipping boy (punishing one person for another man's sin)?
2. How are we to understand redemption?

Regarding #1, my impression is that an all-powerful being who knows everything is refusing to provide more assistance until he's made someone suffer: This being does not appear to be a loving Father as Jesus declares, but rather vindictive and capricious as Mohammed declares.

Regarding #2, both of Sollier's definitions contradict the faith:

1. Viewing redemption as "paying a ransom price for sin" implies Satan is a powerful King of Hell who owns sinful souls and is able to withstand God such that God has no choice but to give him tribute (namely, suffering) in exchange for our souls. Yet the Church teaches that Satan is merely a fallen angel who cannot withstand God.

2. Viewing redemption as "atonement for an offense" appears to imply that God was somehow harmed or offended by our sin in a way similar to how we can damage a human's property or social standing. Yet the Church teaches that God is both perfect and impassible: God cannot be offended or harmed.

So I am left bewildered by this apparently incoherent and contradictory teaching of "redemption" and "redemptive suffering". Would you please clarify these matters?

Edit: Here are answers I arrived at.

 

[Clare73]

St. John Paul II teaches that through our suffering we can share in Jesus' redemptive suffering and thereby help others achieve salvation.

No one shares in the redemption by Christ alone.
However, we do share in the further suffering required to complete Jesus' mission in taking the gospel to the world (2 Timothy 1:8; Colossians 1:24).

J. Sollier defines redemption as either 1) paying a ransom price for sin or 2) atonement for an offense.

Both are correct.

Together this raises two questions:
1) How is redemptive suffering not an unjust whipping boy (punishing one person for another man's sin)?

If the Judge allows me to take the death sentence in my child's place, where is the injustice?

2) How are we to understand redemption?

We are to understand redemption as Jesus paying the penalty of sin against God for those who believe and trust in him for the remission of their sin and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty."

Regarding #1, my impression is that an all-powerful being who knows everything is refusing to provide more assistance until he's made someone suffer:

No more than our own legal system refusing to provide more assistance until the criminal's penalty of prison is paid.

being does not appear to be a loving Father as Jesus declares, but rather vindictive and capricious as Mohammed declares.

Does that make the Judge in a Bench trial, who both convicts and sentences, an unloving father to his own children at home?

Regarding #2, both of Sollier's definitions contradict the faith:

1. Viewing redemption as "paying a ransom price for sin" implies Satan is a powerful King of Hell who owns sinful souls and is able to withstand God such that God has no choice but to give him tribute (namely, suffering) in exchange for our souls. Yet the Church teaches that Satan is merely a fallen angel who cannot withstand God.

The devil has nothing to do with Jesus' ransom. It is paid to God's Divine Court, just as fines are paid to the County Court in our legal system.

2. Viewing redemption as "atonement for an offense" appears to imply that God was somehow harmed or offended by our sin in a way similar to how we can damage a human's property or social standing. Yet the Church teaches that God is both perfect and impassible: God cannot be offended or harmed.

The citizen is entitled to his reputation not being falsely maligned, and the Judge who fines an offender for false maligning is simply executing justice.

And if there is only one Judge in the territory, and it's his reputation that is being falsely maligned, then he is the who executes justice in his own regard.

So I am left bewildered by this apparently incoherent and contradictory teaching of "redemption" and "redemptive suffering".
Would you please clarify these matters?

Not as bewildered as am I that something which so corresponds to our own justice system can be bewildering, incoherent and contradictory to anyone.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

You quote Jeremiah 9:22-23 as if to say I should focus on God rather than theology, on knowing God rather than understanding what Jesus did. Is that what you mean to say?

For the sake of completeness, here's NABRE Jeremiah 9:22-23, basically the same as your quotation:

Thus says the LORD: Let not the wise boast of his wisdom, nor the strong boast of his strength, nor the rich man boast of his riches; But rather, let those who boast, boast of this, that in their prudence they know me, Know that I, the LORD, act with fidelity, justice, and integrity on earth. How I take delight in these—oracle of the LORD.
​

The New Testament -- possibly even Jesus Himself -- indicates that 'knowing God' means keeping God's commandments. The conclusion I arrive at then is that I should focus on corporal and spiritual works of mercy and not bother with theology or ideas about heaven, hell, sin, or justice.

 

[Clare73]

You quote Jeremiah 9:22-23 as if to say I should focus on God rather than theology, on knowing God rather than understanding what Jesus did. Is that what you mean to say?

Why do you speak so irreverently of God in your OP?

And is that what you think is stated in my signature?

For the sake of completeness, here's NABRE Jeremiah 9:22-23, basically the same as your quotation:

Thus says the LORD: Let not the wise boast of his wisdom, nor the strong boast of his strength, nor the rich man boast of his riches; But rather, let those who boast, boast of this, that in their prudence they know me, Know that I, the LORD, act with fidelity, justice, and integrity on earth. How I take delight in these—oracle of the LORD.

The LORD states therein what it is to know him.

The New Testament -- possibly even Jesus Himself -- indicates that 'knowing God' means keeping God's commandments. The conclusion I arrive at then is that I should focus on corporal and spiritual works of mercy and not bother with theology or ideas about heaven, hell, sin, or justice.

Well, that does explain a lot.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

St. John Paul II teaches that through our suffering we can share in Jesus' redemptive suffering and thereby help others achieve salvation.

J. Sollier defines redemption as either 1) paying a ransom price for sin or 2) atonement for an offense.

Together this raises two questions:

1. How is redemptive suffering not an unjust whipping boy (punishing one person for another man's sin)?
2. How are we to understand redemption?

Regarding #1, my impression is that an all-powerful being who knows everything is refusing to provide more assistance until he's made someone suffer: This being does not appear to be a loving Father as Jesus declares, but rather vindictive and capricious as Mohammed declares.

Regarding #2, both of Sollier's definitions contradict the faith:

1. Viewing redemption as "paying a ransom price for sin" implies Satan is a powerful King of Hell who owns sinful souls and is able to withstand God such that God has no choice but to give him tribute (namely, suffering) in exchange for our souls. Yet the Church teaches that Satan is merely a fallen angel who cannot withstand God.

2. Viewing redemption as "atonement for an offense" appears to imply that God was somehow harmed or offended by our sin in a way similar to how we can damage a human's property or social standing. Yet the Church teaches that God is both perfect and impassible: God cannot be offended or harmed.

So I am left bewildered by this apparently incoherent and contradictory teaching of "redemption" and "redemptive suffering". Would you please clarify these matters?

Hello. You posted in the "general theology" forum. What you are questioning has different answers depending on ones denomination. A Catholic wrote this article, are you open to other opinions ? Be blessed.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

Hello. You posted in the "general theology" forum. What you are questioning has different answers depending on ones denomination. A Catholic wrote this article, are you open to other opinions ? Be blessed.

I'm trying to learn about reality and follow what is true. I try to be open to any truth I can find. (It is regrettable that so many Protestants have not studied history.)

 

[AetheriusLamia]

Why do you speak so irreverently of God in your OP?

??? To what are you referring?

Well, that does explain a lot.

If it helps: I didn't see the bulk of your post when I posted earlier. It's possible an advertisement pushed page content such that all I saw was your signature and I thought it was your entire post; or else I haven't been here in a long time and the formatting of the webpage confused me.

I wish you were able to understand my perspective; your responses haven't helped me because your perspective is so different.

 

[com7fy8]

1. Viewing redemption as "paying a ransom price for sin" implies Satan is a powerful King of Hell who owns sinful souls and is able to withstand God such that God has no choice but to give him tribute (namely, suffering) in exchange for our souls. Yet the Church teaches that Satan is merely a fallen angel who cannot withstand God.

No, Satan can not withstand God.

But Jesus did give Himself as our ransom. Jesus did not make some deal with Satan, though, but Jesus died so that through death He could destroy Satan.

So . . . on the cross, Jesus gave Himself for us, plus He died in order to destroy Satan . . . not make some ransom deal with Satan.

And Jesus on the cross did all that is needed for our redemption.

So, there is nothing we can add to this.

Plus, it is not the suffering which redeems, but who Jesus is . . . how Jesus is so perfectly pleasing to our Father, obeying our Father so we may be redeemed.

 

[public hermit]

my impression is that an all-powerful being who knows everything is refusing to provide more assistance until he's made someone suffer: This being does not appear to be a loving Father as Jesus declares, but rather vindictive and capricious as Mohammed declares

Does it change your impression if the one who suffers is God incarnate? It's not that God conferred the suffering that results from human evil on some poor bystander. God himself entered the human condition and endures the consequences of human sin. As the ancients used to put it, he became like us so that we could become like him. He entered into the conditions of human sinfull6ness, bearing the brunt human evil, so that in overcoming it he could take us with him.

Perhaps a Christus Victor approach, which was common prior to Anselm, would help?

https://www.theopedia.com/christus-victor

 

[Clare73]

??? To what are you referring?

Yours following:

How is redemptive suffering not an unjust whipping boy (punishing one person for another man's sin)?

This being does not appear to be a loving Father as Jesus declares, but rather vindictive and capricious as Mohammed declares.

Viewing redemption as "paying a ransom price for sin" implies Satan is a powerful King of Hell who owns sinful souls and is able to withstand God such that God has no choice but to give him tribute (namely, suffering) in exchange for our souls.

If it helps: I didn't see the bulk of your post when I posted earlier. It's possible an advertisement pushed page content such that all I saw was your signature and I thought it was your entire post; or else I haven't been here in a long time and the formatting of the webpage confused me.

I wish you were able to understand my perspective; your responses haven't helped me because your perspective is so different.

I addressed your perspective.

Your objections are based in a non-understanding of the principles of justice, which are the same principles of the American justice system, which should therefore help you see the justness of God's substitutional "redemptive suffering."

 

[Clare73]

Does it change your impression if the one who suffers is God incarnate? It's not that God conferred the suffering that results from human evil on some poor bystander. God himself entered the human condition and endures the consequences of human sin. As the ancients used to put it, he became like us so that we could become like him. He entered into the conditions of human sinfull6ness, bearing the brunt human evil, so that in overcoming it he could take us with him.

Perhaps a Christus Victor approach, which was common prior to Anselm, would help?

https://www.theopedia.com/christus-victor

How does Christus Victor work with the Day of Atonement, the foreshadow of the NT atonement by Christ; i.e., substitutionary and penal (Leviticus 5:6-7, Leviticus 5:15, Leviticus 6:6, Leviticus 26:41-43)?

trespass offering = penalty

 

[Hmm]

Perhaps a Christus Victor approach, which was common prior to Anselm, would help?

https://www.theopedia.com/christus-victor

Informative little article. This quote seems to sum it up:

"As the term Christus Victor indicates, the idea of “ransom” should not be seen in terms (as Anselm did) of a business transaction, but more of a rescue or liberation of humanity from the slavery of sin. Unlike the Satisfaction or Penal-substitution views of the atonement rooted in the idea of Christ paying the penalty of sin to satisfy the demands of justice, the Christus Victor view is rooted in the incarnation and how Christ entered into human misery and wickedness and thus redeemed it. Irenaeus called this "Recapitulation" (re-creation)."

It's interesting to read that the Eastern Orthodox view still hold to the Christus Victor view.

 

[public hermit]

How does Christus Victor work with the Day of Atonement, the foreshadow of the NT atonement by Christ; i.e., substitutionary and penal (Leviticus 5:6-7, Leviticus 5:15, Leviticus 6:6, Leviticus 26:41-43)?

trespass offering = penalty

Thats a good question. Are they incompatible, you think? I'll have to think about it.

 

[Clare73]

Informative little article. This quote seems to sum it up:
"As the term Christus Victor indicates, the idea of “ransom” should not be seen in terms (as Anselm did) of a business transaction, but more of a rescue or liberation of humanity from the slavery of sin. Unlike the Satisfaction or Penal-substitution views of the atonement rooted in the idea of Christ paying the penalty of sin to satisfy the demands of justice,

However, Jesus didn't need to die to liberate us from slavery of sin.
That could have been done with the new birth to all.

Jesus had to die as the bloody sacrifice of atonement (Romans 5:11) for our sin (foreshadowed in the OT Day of Atonement) in order to free us from condemnation (Romans 5:18, 8:1) to the wrath of God (Romans 5:9, Ephesians 2:3) in the second death (lake of fire).

the Christus Victor view is rooted in the incarnation and how Christ entered into human misery and wickedness and thus redeemed it. Irenaeus called this "Recapitulation" (re-creation)."

It's interesting to read that the Eastern Orthodox view still hold to the Christus Victor view.

 

[Clare73]

Thats a good question. Are they incompatible, you think? I'll have to think about it.

Christus Victor is inadequate. . .it has no power. . .it completely overlooks the OT foreshadows of Jesus' sacrifice in the sacrificial system of atonement, culminating in the Day of Atonement for all Israel, for deliverance from God's condemnation (Romans 5:18) on sin, the second death. . .in favor of a restorative, re-creative purpose only, making the world a better place, etc.

There is re-creation, restoration in the spiritual new creature in Christ.
Christus Victor's restorative aspect is compatible with substitutionary penal atonement as one of the spiritual benefits of the body of Christ, secured by the penal atonement.

 

[Hmm]

However, Jesus didn't need to die to liberate us from slavery of sin.
That could have been done with the new birth to all.

Perhaps He needed to die so that He could be resurrected and so begin God's long standing project of reuniting heaven and earth.

 

[Clare73]

Perhaps He needed to die so that He could be resurrected and so begin God's long standing project of reuniting heaven and earth.

Why would that require a sacrificial death (Romans 3:25), and faith in the blood of that sacrifice?
What's the blood all about?

 

[Hmm]

Why would that require a sacrificial death (Romans 3:25), and faith in the blood of that sacrifice?

I'm not sure I see not in those terms. The requirement for a blood sacrifice doesn't make sense to me. I think Jesus's death was necessary for a number of reasons. Showing God's infinite love for us is one I think. Also preaching the gospel He did would inevitably bring Him up against the authorities and lead to His execution. I'm sure that if Jesus came today and commanded us to love and look after one another He would also likely be killed by an assassin or locked up for national security reasons.

 

[public hermit]

Christus Victor is inadequate. . .it has no power. . .it completely overlooks the OT foreshadows of Jesus' sacrifice in the sacrificial system of atonement, culminating in the Day of Atonement for all Israel, for deliverance from God's condemnation (Romans 5:18) on sin, the second death. . .in favor of a restorative, re-creative purpose only, making the world a better place, etc.

There is re-creation, restoration in the spiritual new creature in Christ.
Christus Victor's restorative aspect is compatible with substitutionary penal atonement as one of the spiritual benefits of the body of Christ, secured by the penal atonement.

I see what you're saying, but I would disagree that CV is inadequate. Jesus's sacrifice is all of it. He emptied himself, became as we are, and yet was obedient even to the point of death.

The self-emptying (kenosis) of the divine is an act of sacrifice, self-giving love. The cross is just part of what it takes to recapitulate via self-giving love. I would say satisfaction of divine justice is a given, in this case. Obviously, there is substitution, in the sense he became like us so that we could become like him. What's missing is the court room framework that dominates Anselm's penal emphasis.

I'm don't know, Clare. I hate to always be disagreeable, lol, but I'm going with CV as the superior theory, encompassing all others.

 

[public hermit]

Why would that require a sacrificial death (Romans 3:25), and faith in the blood of that sacrifice?
What's the blood all about?

What does the blood represent, to you?

To me, the blood (spilt) represents loss of life, i.e. the life is in the blood. The sacrifice is that Christ entered the human condition and rectified it from within, which included the full consequences of human sin, death.

Maybe all that's obvious, but I do wonder what others think the blood means.