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

[Clare73]

I'm not sure I see not in those terms.
The requirement for a blood sacrifice doesn't make sense to me.

First rule of the Godhead:
Human rationale is not the measure of divine saving truth.

Nevertheless, it is what the NT presents as necessary to be saved from eternal punishment.

Hebrews 2:17 - ". . .he had to be made like his brothers. . .that he might make atonement for (turn aside God's wrath, taking away) the sins of the people (as in the OT Day of Atonement sacrifices)

Hebrews 10:28 - "Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people."

1 John 4:10 - ". . .he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for (the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away) our sins."

Romans 3:25 - God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement (as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin) through faith in his blood.

Faith and trust in Jesus' atonement for your sin are necessary for salvation from God's wrath on (and everlasting punishment of) your sin.

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.

 

[Clare73]

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.

If justice is involved, the court room theory is involved.

I'm not trying to change your mind on this.

 

[Hmm]

First rule of the Godhead:
Human rationale is not the measure of saving truth.

I'm not saying that I know what saving truth is - I don't. I was just saying that the idea that a blood sacrifice is necessary makes no sense to me.

Faith and trust in Jesus' atonement for your sin are necessary for salvation from God's wrath on (and everlasting punishment of) your sin.

I have to admit I'm just as hazy about what God's wrath means and I don't believe in eternal punishment with no possibility if redemption.

 

[Clare73]

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.

He didn't have to go through the agony in the garden and die a torturous bloody sacrificial death to "enter the human condition and rectify it from within." He could have lived and died a natural death and accomplished that.

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

Well, here is what Scripture stateS:

Blood = death (eternal death), the penalty for sin. (Leviticus 17:11, Leviticus 20:9-11).

The life is in the blood, which is the sustainer of life (Leviticus 17:14),
it was given to make atonement on the altar, blood makes atonement for one's life (Leviticus 17:11).
The sprinkling, applying or pouring of blood upon the altar signified that the life of the sacrifice was given as the penalty (Leviticus 5:6-7, Leviticus 6:6) for sin, instead of the life of the sinner.

 

[bling]

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?

You do good to see just some of the issues with most people’s ideas on Atonement.

The Greek word used for redemption carries with it the idea of no small act and usually refers to being set free from a kidnapper after a huge ransom payment.


Atonement is a huge misunderstood topic which all the theories do a poor job explaining, look at just one aspect they do not address:

The Bible refers to Jesus’ sacrifice as a literal ransom payment:

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time

Heb. 9: 15…now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

We do have the blood specifically mentioned in Revelation 5:9 They sing a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation;

We should agree on:

1. Jesus life and death is the unbelievable huge ransom payment?

2. The ransom payment was made to set children free to go to the Kingdom and be with the Father?

3. Deity (Jesus and God both) made this unbelievable huge payment?

4. All these fit perfectly a ransom scenario?

5. The scripture is not describing Jesus’ cruel torturous death on the cross as being like a ransom payment, but as being a ransom payment?


Now think about this:

If it is not a kidnapping then it is no “ransoming”, but the Bible tells us there is a ransom payment at least being offered and definitely made for “many” and “God’s saints” and there is a redemption redemption (setting free).

Peter even helps us out more by contrasting the unbelievable huge payment of Christ to just a payment of silver and gold. Who might take silver and gold, so it can be a good analogy for Peter? 1 Peter 1:18 You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold,

A kidnapper, in general, holds back the parent’s children awaiting an acceptable ransom payment, so who do you blame for keeping children out of the Kingdom?

The Kidnapper cannot be God since He is not an undeserving criminal kidnapper holding His own children back.

Also the Kidnapper would not be satan, since God has the power to take from sayan, without paying anything to satan. There is no cosmic Law saying you got to pay the kidnapper and it would be wrong to do so, if you could get around it and satan is fully undeserving.

We know death, sin and evil were concurred with Christ’s death and resurrection, but those are not tangible things needing to be paid anything.

So who is the kidnapper?

When you go up to a nonbelieving sinner, what are you trying to get him/her to accept: A doctrine, a denomination, a book, a theology, or something else. NO, you want the nonbeliever to accept “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified” and if he does a child of God is released to enter the Kingdom and be with God, but if the sinner rejects “Jesus Christ and Him crucifies” a child is kept out of the Kingdom.

Does this not sound very much like a kidnapping scenario with a ransom being offered?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is described in scripture as the ransom payment?

Would the sinner holding a child of God out of the Kingdom of God describe a kidnapper?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is a huge sacrificial payment, like you find with children being ransomed?

Parents will make huge sacrificial payments to have their children released.

 

[public hermit]

If justice is involved, the court room theory is involved

To me, God's justice is fulfilled when life as God intended obtains. When God gave the wandering Hebrews the law, God said the law means life. So, you know, keep it. Christ said he came so we would have life and have it abundantly. That's the whole point of CV is life. That's the fulfillment of justice.

The court room motifs are a handy framework for speaking about what God is doing. But it's not the only one found in the scriptures, and I would hesitate to make it the primary one. But that's me. I honor your position.

 

[Clare73]

You do good to see just some of the issues with most people’s ideas on Atonement.

The Greek word used for redemption carries with it the idea of no small act and usually refers to being set free from a kidnapper after a huge ransom payment.


Atonement is a huge misunderstood topic which all the theories do a poor job explaining, look at just one aspect they do not address:

The Bible refers to Jesus’ sacrifice as a literal ransom payment:

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time

Heb. 9: 15…now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

We do have the blood specifically mentioned in Revelation 5:9 They sing a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation;

We should agree on:

1. Jesus life and death is the unbelievable huge ransom payment?

2. The ransom payment was made to set children free to go to the Kingdom and be with the Father?

3. Deity (Jesus and God both) made this unbelievable huge payment?

4. All these fit perfectly a ransom scenario?

5. The scripture is not describing Jesus’ cruel torturous death on the cross as being like a ransom payment, but as being a ransom payment?

Now think about this:

If it is not a kidnapping then it is no “ransoming”, but the Bible tells us there is a ransom payment at least being offered and definitely made for “many” and “God’s saints” and there is a redemption redemption (setting free).

If it has to be "kidnapping" for you, then we were "kidnapped" by Adam's sin which was imputed to us (Romans 5:18-19), and for which we are condemned to the second death.

The ransom was paid as a fine to the Divine Court of justice, just as fines are paid to the County Court in the American justice system.

 

[Clare73]

To me, God's justice is fulfilled when life as God intended obtains. When God gave the wandering Hebrews the law, God said the law means life. So, you know, keep it. Christ said he came so we would have life and have it abundantly. That's the whole point of CV is life. That's the fulfillment of justice.

The court room motifs are a handy framework for speaking about what God is doing. But it's not the only one found in the scriptures, and I would hesitate to make it the primary one. But that's me. I honor your position.

Where on earth do we find that "justice" means, or ever meant, "life"?

Justice is, and always has been, "giving everyone his due.'

 

[Bruce Leiter]

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?

Your sources should be replaced by the Bible and how it defines redemption. Only Jesus provided redemption. Only he as fully God and fully human had the power to redeem us, not some human being.
I suggest that you try to look at and accept that word's definition on the basis of the Bible and its assumptions alone and not by your reasoning or anyone else's.

That being said, Sollier is right in his definition, but your reasoning has led to wrong conclusions. Jesus willingly suffered and died to redeem you if you're a believer. Yes, his death at the hands of the religious leaders and Romans was completely unjust, but he was all believers' loving Substitute, because we all deserved full punishment for our sins, that is, hell.

 

[Hmm]

Where on earth do we find that "justice" means, or ever meant, "life"?

Life is the more primary element though which I think is what PH was saying. What is it people are really longing for in this life? Is it the fullness of life that God promises us or is it a sense that we have satisfied some kind of justice requirement? I would say the former.

 

[public hermit]

Where on earth do we find that "justice" means, or ever meant, "life"?

Justice is, and always has been, "giving everyone his due.'

God's righteousness/justice is a gift of grace that leads to life. God's justice is revealed from faith to faith (Rom. 1:17). If you think God's justice is always about giving everyone their due, then do I have some good news for you, lol!

 

[Clare73]

Life is the more primary element though which I think is what PH was saying. What is it people are really longing for in this life? Is it the fullness of life that God promises us or is it a sense that we have satisfied some kind of justice requirement? I would say the former.

Again, human rationale at work.

What good is "fullness of life" if I am going to spend eternity in punishment?

The only reason "fullness of life" would be more important is because they haven't been informed of their eternal destiny apart from faith in Jesus Christ.

Keep your eye on the ball.
God's whole purpose in creation is to show forth the glory of his goodness through the glory of his Son in redemption through faith in the Son.

 

[Hmm]

, human rationale at work.

Human rationale is not a dirty word (or two words). God created us in His image and human reason reflects His own rationality, as does the physical universe which is an intelligible and ordered one.

What good is "fullness of life" if I am going to spend eternity in punishment?

Fullness of life is what God wants for us.
I don't think He wants us to sit around unconcerned about this life and thinking only of the next. He has work for us to do here building for His kingdom.

 

[Clare73]

God's righteousness/justice is a gift of grace that leads to life. God's justice is revealed from faith to faith (Rom. 1:17). If you think God's justice is always about giving everyone their due, then do I have some good news for you, lol!

That is precisely what justice is.
My due is eternal death because of my guilt of Adam's sin imputed to me (Romans 5:18).

Jesus received "my due" for me in my name, freed me from the penalty I owed, his own righteousness imparted to me (Romans 5:18-19) and God adopted me into his own family as a child born of God.

 

[public hermit]

That is precisely what justness is.
My due is eternal death because of my guilt of Adam's sin imputed to me (Romans 5:18).

Jesus received "my due" for me in my name, freed me from the penalty I owed, his own righteousness imparted to me (Romans 5:18-19) and God adopted me into his own family as a child born of God.

Exactly. One man's (i.e. Christ) act of justice leads to justification and life for all (Rom. 5:18). Godis justice leads to life, as I said.

There are not two words for justice/righteousness. Same Greek word.

 

[Clare73]

Human rationale is not a dirty word (or two words). God created us in His image and human reason reflects His own rationality, as does the physical universe which is an intelligible and ordered one.

Fallen human rationale is not in agreement with God.

Fullness of life is what God wants for us.
I don't think He wants us to sit around unconcerned about this life and thinking only of the next. He has work for us to do here building for His kingdom.

The kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), it is of the spiritual world (Matthew 3:2), invisible (Luke 17:20), within men (Luke 17:21), set up in the hearts and consciences of those in whom he reigns and rules.

 

[Hmm]

Fallen human rationale is not in agreement with God.
The kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), it is of the spiritual world (Matthew 3:2), invisible (Luke 17:20), within men (Luke 17:21), set up in the hearts and consciences of those in whom he reigns and rules.

What do you think Jesus meant when He said the “kingdom of God is at hand”?

It means that God’s kingdom is coming on earth as in heaven. It's not somewhere up in the clouds but here on earth and transforming it. This is why we need to be concerned about things like social justice because God's kingdom is a kingdom of justice. Only God builds His kingdom but we build for it which is why all the good we do here on earth is not wasted. God's project to reunite us with Him will only be complete and perfect with the arrival of "the new heaven and the new earth" but the project began with the resurrection and we as His transformed people are a part of the new creation here on earth and right now.

 

[Clare73]

Exactly. One man's (i.e. Christ) act of justice leads to justification and life for all
(Rom. 5:18). Godis justice leads to life, as I said.

Romans 5:18 - One righteous act of obedience (the cross) brought righteousness/justification (dakaioma) for all who believe in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

There are not two words for justice/righteousness. Same Greek word.

Just and righteous are the same Greek word (daikaios).

Justification and righteousness can be the same Greek word (dikaioma), both meaning the concrete expression of righteousness, a declaration that a person or thing is righteous.

Justice and punishment/vengeance are the same Greek word (dike).

Justice (dike) and righteousness (dikaioma) are not the same Greek word.

 

[public hermit]

Just and righteous are the same Greek word (daikaios).

Justification and righteousness can be the same Greek word (dikaioma), both meaning the concrete expression of righteousness, a declaration that a person or thing is righteous.

Justice and punishment/vengeance are the same Greek word (dike).

Justice (dike) and righteousness (dikaioma) are not the same Greek word.

One righteous act of obedience (the cross) brought righteousness/justification (dakaioma) for all who believe in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

So, would you agree that God's justice leads to life?

Think about that which is unjust. Why is it unjust? It's not simply because it is wrong, or against God's will (although both are true), but because it works against life.

 

[Clare73]

What do you think Jesus meant when He said the “kingdom of God is at hand”?

It means that God’s kingdom is coming on earth as in heaven. It's not somewhere up in the clouds but here on earth and transforming it. This is why we need to be concerned about things like social justice because God's kingdom is a kingdom of justice. Only God builds His kingdom but we build for it which is why all the good we do here on earth is not wasted. God's project to reunite us with Him will only be complete and perfect with the arrival of "the new heaven and the new earth" but the project began with the resurrection and we as His transformed people are a part of the new creation here on earth and right now.

The earth is not being transformed. The earth is going to be destroyed by fire, and a new earth will replace it.