Did Jesus die as payment we owe?

[Van]

I have gotten confused here. I don't know if there is a verse that specifically says his death was payment in our place, but that seems the only conclusion for why he died, but someone said something that made it seem like they think he did not die in our place?

I am not trying to get into a huge theological issue, I am not sure why this would have divided opinion. What is the best way to see the relevant Bible verses on this?

Thank you for any help.
Jason

No that is not the only conclusion for why Christ had to die, as payment for the specific sins of specific individuals. Christ's death provides the means of salvation for all humanity, those to be saved and those never to be saved. Obviously, those never saved undergo punishment for their sins, so they were not also "paid for" by Christ.

Christ's death provides:
1) The means of salvation for humanity
2) The salvation for those of humanity God transfers into Christ from the realm of darkness.

 

[Van]

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

For our benefit God treated Christ as if He had sinned, who had not sinned, so that if we are placed within Christ's spiritual body, we would become the righteousness of God by undergoing the washing of regeneration. Christ became the means of reconciliation by His sacrifice.

 

[JasonF]

@DaveXR650 do you have any other verses you could share that clarify that point?

@JonC I really want to get this right. Could you share any verses that would support what you are saying and would not support it being a payment we owe? As its correct that the difference in what you are saying is that his payment is not something we owe? Or rather that he is not paying what we owe, but paying for us. Though he seems to be paying the very thing we owe, death, so its kind of hard to see your point I think. Could you also please share Lutheran, Traditional, etc. things I can look at that talk about what you are saying?

I think this is a hard one to really try to see. There is another post on this the forum that I think has a similar issue. The one on the "founding text for the doctrine of hell" we see on there that people are reading the comments by early Christians and coming up with two different views. It is true that when I first read those posts colored by what the OP said, I saw what he said, but when I later just read it and tried to not have any coloring in my mind, I did not see the early Christians as relating it to hell at all. I did not share on that post because I can't say I have a right answer, my point is just that it can be hard to read verses without the interpretation we have been told to see maybe.

JonC, I would like to see if you can comment on some of the things that I think also might point to it being a fine we paid. I am not decided on the issue as I want to get it right and so want to consider what you are saying. What all groups is it you say believe this, early Christians, Lutherans, you then also included traditional Christianity and Anabaptists, can you be specific as to who those are? The Russian Church? And who are Anabaptists, I thought they were just baptists?

When you say one group of reformers thought he died instead of us instead of for us, how are you sure that these words are not being used as synonyms to mean the same thing?

God uses people and does things in his providence, so it could also be that God used a group of men trained in judicial to bring out the judicial meaning of this issue maybe?

One thing that seems to speak to the judicial interpretation is:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Matthew 23:23 KJV

So Jesus points out law, judgment, mercy, and faith. This seems to be the exact line of thought the judicial view holds. God gave a law, we transgressed it, so there is judgment, that our sins dserve death as the anger of God abides on those who sin, mercy, that God sent his son, faith, that faith is the medium God uses to work salvation in us. Could you speak on this point?

So I think one thing we all need to look at on this is the sacrifices of the law, and the passover. So, in the law the sins were placed on a goat, and a sacrifice was made by blood to redeem, is that correct? The passover is also that blood was used to redeem, though the part about sins seems absent?

So in the Old Testament God says that he redeemed his people out of Egypt. I am kind of confused on this, can anyone help me understand, so what was the payment, the killing of Egypts first born, or was it the lambs used to paint the door posts, or what was the payment?

When the Bible says:

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23 KJV

This seems to me, to carry the idea that because of the work we have done, our sin, we our due to be paid death. Would everyone agree with this? JonC are you saying that instead of death being God's sentence for breaking the law, that this death is rather the natural result of sin? I do not find it easy to know what you mean on some of these things. So we are due death... that seems confusing, because we are saying that death is a debt we owe. Any thoughts I am not sure where to go from here?

Jesus bore our sins, and became a curse for us, and died, why was this the payment if it wasn't God's wrath?

"And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers;" Deuteronomy 13:17 KJV

If we sin it is the fierceness of his anger on us right? When the Bible says

"Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die." Ezekiel 18:4 KJV

Doesn't it seem that it is saying the death is God's judgment on it? JonC does your point rely on death not being a judgment for sin? I am not sure, just trying to understand all this.

If death is not the judgment of God, then why does death occur, I mean its not something not in God's control, so then we are left trying to figure out why did Jesus have to die, why couldn't he just take our sins away? If it isn't to satisfy God's justice, why did Jesus have to suffer for sin? I do not see solidarity as being why he suffered for sin, or can you explain it more? Please actually explain things more, maybe it is I who am deficient, as I can't understand your short answers I am used to you giving.

How does this verse weigh in on this topic?

"By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament." Hebrews 7:22 KJV

Also,

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Corinthians 5:21 KJV

Why did he have to be made sin if it wasn't to pay sin's cost? or is the cost of sin different than a sin debt?

@JonC I hope you will answer and help me at least understand what you are saying and how what you are saying works?

 

[JasonF]

Christ's death provides the means of salvation for all humanity, those to be saved and those never to be saved. Obviously, those never saved undergo punishment for their sins, so they were not also "paid for" by Christ.

Could you elaborate, I do not see why Jesus' death can not pay for sin, and it only go to those who trust in him? Those who do not have faith in Jesus do not get the payment to their account, even though the payment is made available. How is this against it paying for sin of people? You are saying he did not pay for my specific sins, but he made a payment that can be put in place, I dont know if there is a difference in what you are saying that I can understand?

 

[Piper]

Could you elaborate, I do not see why Jesus' death can not pay for sin, and it only go to those who trust in him? Those who do not have faith in Jesus do not get the payment to their account, even though the payment is made available. How is this against it paying for sin of people? You are saying he did not pay for my specific sins, but he made a payment that can be put in place, I dont know if there is a difference in what you are saying that I can understand?

He is trying to explain his Arminian understanding of the gospel. This is a summary of his view, not mine. "Christ died for no one in particular, just died. (or possibly, he died for everyone is a general sense) Then, if you, from the goodness of your heart, differentiating you from another unsaved person, believe the gospel, that death gets counted as yours. "

It is called Unlimited Atonement. ie.e Christ died for everyone.

The problem is that the Bible only seems to say that in one verse, and it can be explained more likely as He died for all Kinds of people, not just Jewish ones.

 

[JasonF]

The problem is that the Bible only seems to say that in one verse, and it can be explained more likely as He died for all Kinds of people, not just Jewish ones.

See this is interesting, I never looked at it that way, its like i felt it in my mind as a response to your saying this. I will admit that I always took the verse to say for everyone, not all kinds of people.

Is this we are discussing?

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2 KJV

Do you feel this translation is inaccurate, or just how people understand it? Why is there a problem with his death being for the sins of the whole world and only those who end up with faith in him are the ones who get it on their account as it were?

 

[JasonF]

Bible verses for the excerpt above at SKU-000697434_TEXT.indd (b5z.net), starting at page 42, last paragraph, "IMPUTATION".

Isaiah 53 – (5) But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. (6) All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

I am not clear if Van and @JonC have the same view on this or not, but I feel like in these verses here that I am glad I checked what KenH was pointing to, that when it says the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, that seems to me to be saying the punishment of our peace was upon him, he took punishment for our peace... we deserved punishment right? I mean God's sentence of punishment will be on all those who do not trust in Jesus' death right?




Ok everyone, here is an important question, it seems like I am getting into a deep theological issue here, should I instead just put pause on this and read the whole Bible 3 times before going into this more? Though I still feel like I'd like JonC to explain what he is saying as I am not sure where else to get this view explained.

 

[Piper]

See this is interesting, I never looked at it that way, its like i felt it in my mind as a response to your saying this. I will admit that I always took the verse to say for everyone, not all kinds of people.

Is this we are discussing?

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2 KJV

Do you feel this translation is inaccurate, or just how people understand it? Why is there a problem with his death being for the sins of the whole world and only those who end up with faith in him are the ones who get it on their account as it were?

The rest of scripture teaches that he died for his people.

1 Cor 15:3 Christ died for our sins.. referring to believers in Corinth and Paul.
John 10 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

But that does not mean that we cannot offer the gift of life to everyone like Revelation 22:17 says
And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely

 

[KenH]

I am glad I checked what KenH was pointing to, that when it says the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, that seems to me to be saying the punishment of our peace was upon him, he took punishment for our peace... we deserved punishment right? I mean God's sentence of punishment will be on all those who do not trust in Jesus' death right?

Yes, Christ Jesus paid the sin debt, the penalty for which is spiritual death, for everyone one that He came to earth to save; as the angel told Joseph in Matthew 1:21: "He shall save his people from their sins.'

And all those whom Christ Jesus came to save will look to Christ Jesus alone as "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS". (Jeremiah 23:6)

 

[DaveXR650]

God uses people and does things in his providence, so it could also be that God used a group of men trained in judicial to bring out the judicial meaning of this issue maybe?

Absolutely. There is a complaint that the Reformers so emphasized the atonement as a transaction in economic terms that they isolated the payment for specific sins over the loving and reconciling work of Christ and the Father. Most of us can't really think in terms of theology. But we think in terms of an "impression". If your teaching on the atonement gives you the impression of Jesus suffering a certain amount for each actual sin of each elect person until all the sins of all those who would be saved were paid for - is that a good way to look at it? The answer is no.

Along the same line, if your impression of the atonement is an angry God standing off and demanding his right to punish each person who sinned and then you have Jesus stepping in and saying "I'll take that for them" and he then convincing God not to give us what we deserve - is that correct? Again, no.

But is there an aspect of the atonement, and a very central and core aspect, that says it is indeed penal and substitutionary, and did the Reformers develop and explain this better that anyone else ever had by using their philosophical background as well as New and Old Testament scripture? The answer is yes, for sure.

 

[Piper]

Well, because the logical conclusion is that if you are bought with a price and "the thing that happened" was that Christ died on the cross then one would correctly conclude that Christ died as a payment we owe. There is indeed enough scripture to show that the terms used of payment and purchasing and sin debt are indeed valid as the scriptures listed by others above show.

Right. I think that someone other than you has been convinced somehow that Christ's death was not payment, and no matter how clear the implications of numerous verses, they will try and refute it.

 

[JasonF]

Deut 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.


I think this verse suggests or seems it could be used to clarify that death is the judgement and sentence passed by God for sin, not some natural occurrence, but if i use this word correctly, a penal punishment for sin. And Jesus took the chastisement of our peace.

@JonC seems to be saying that Jesus' death was not taking the publicy for us or instead of us. So i am trying to understand what his view is and sharing verses that seem to weigh on the issue. I am going he will speak more when he has time. I want to get this right which i feel like that means heading JonC out to try to understand.

 

[Piper]

Deut 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.


I think this verse suggests or seems it could be used to clarify that death is the judgement and sentence passed by God for sin, not some natural occurrence, but if i use this word correctly, a penal punishment for sin. And Jesus took the chastisement of our peace.

@JonC seems to be saying that Jesus' death was not taking the publicy for us or instead of us. So i am trying to understand what his view is and sharing verses that seem to weigh on the issue. I am going he will speak more when he has time. I want to get this right which i feel like that means heading JonC out to try to understand.

Yeah, Jon seems to have a very narrow view and I can't really tell what he is trying to say. It is not clear.

 

[JonC]

The opposite. They back up the Biblical position of the gospel of Christ that Christ died for the sins of His people.

"God justified His elect, who are wicked and ungodly by nature and by practice, through the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to them. God also condemned and punished the Lord Jesus Christ, the just ONE, through the sins of His elect imputed to Him. This was in no way a perversion of God’s justice. Men make it so because they hate the doctrine of imputation, especially imputed righteousness. Why? It is because it leaves them with no room to boast in (or think highly of) themselves. The glorious truth that God justly punished His Son for sins imputed to Him and that God is just to justify sinners based on Christ’s righteousness imputed to them is the heart of the Gospel, the reality of real substitution, and the glory of God’s people. It is one of the major truths separating true Christianity from all false religions.

To impute means to “lay to the charge or account of” in the matter of the demerit or debt of sin or the merit or credit of righteousness. It has to do with one being legally and justly charged with the responsibility and liability of a debt owed or a debt paid. For example, if you were a million dollars in debt to a local bank, and you were totally bankrupt, without one penny to pay towards diminishing that debt, there would still remain one million dollars imputed or charged to your account. If you were to go to the bank and cast yourself upon their mercy, you know it would do you no good. You are in debt. The law says you are legally responsible to pay that debt. Such debt would be bondage, like being in debtor’s prison. But imagine going to the bank president to beg for mercy. The bank president says, “Let’s look at your account in the books.” He opens the books, finds your name, and he says, to your surprise, “There is no charge here to you. You do not owe one million dollars. Someone came in and told us to put your debt on his account. He said, ‘Charge it to me. I’ll pay it.’ And he did. It is paid – the whole amount. You owe nothing!” Could you imagine how relieved you would be? How legally free and liberated in spirit and mind you would be? But then the banker says, “Hold on, I have more information for you. That same person who paid your debt has placed one million dollars into your account. He said, ‘Charge or credit it to him. This is his money which I earned and have given to him.’” You must admit that if this were to happen, you would not be able to describe your joy and peace in not only having your debt paid but also in having a million dollars imputed or credited to your account. It is the same with the doctrine of imputation when it comes to the justification of a sinner.

God does not impute trespasses to His people. He does not charge them with sin or its debt. To whom did God charge them? He charged them to Jesus Christ as the Substitute and Surety of His people. God the Father “made Him to be sin for us.” This is the imputation of the debt of the sins of God’s elect to Christ. Again, some say that it would be unjust for God to do this because Christ did no sin and knew no sin, but they fail to see the reality of real substitution and what it is to be a surety. A surety is one who willingly takes responsibility for another’s debt. In the everlasting covenant of grace, the Lord Jesus Christ willingly agreed to take responsibility for the sins, the debt, of His people."

Bible verses for the excerpt above at SKU-000697434_TEXT.indd (b5z.net), starting at page 42, last paragraph, "IMPUTATION".

This should be clear if one is familiar with what a surety is:

Hebrews 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

Hebrews 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

(emphasis mine)

Sorry. I thought we were talking about the Bible. I completely agree with the passages you post here, but I do not believe that Jesus died as a payment we owed.

One reason is that the Bible speaks of Jesus suffering and dying being authored solely by the "powers of darkness", "Satan", the "powers of this world", and "sin". If Jesus' death was a debt payment then God paid Satan. I don't see that as a logical conclusion.

The only way around this is to replace Satan with God, which is probably worse than thinking God paid a debt to Satan.

I'll stick with the Bible on this one. We have enough in common there.

 

[JonC]

Well, because the logical conclusion is that if you are bought with a price and "the thing that happened" was that Christ died on the cross then one would correctly conclude that Christ died as a payment we owe. There is indeed enough scripture to show that the terms used of payment and purchasing and sin debt are indeed valid as the scriptures listed by others above show.

No, that is not a logical conclusion.

We were bought with a price (with the previous blood of Christ).

You are assuming that this means we owed some type of debt. And you are making the fallacy of assuming it is the logical conclusion.

You need to prove that assumption because it is not in the Bible.

For example - by your "logic" you assume soldiers who paid the price for your freedom paid your debt. But it was not a debt at all. It was the cost of your freedom.

We cannot go further without you proving your presupposition here because it is not only illogical that a price paid necessitates a debt but it is contrary to how traditional Christian faith viewed Christ's death (the exception being what the Ransom Theory became).

 

[JonC]

Yeah, Jon seems to have a very narrow view and I can't really tell what he is trying to say. It is not clear.

I will try to help her (for you and @JasonF ), but you'll have to ask questions as I am unable to discern what is not clear (a common problem when talking across views).

I will try to be specific.

Adam was influenced by Satan (by the "powers of darkness") to sin. Adam sinned and that sin produced death (the wages of sin is death).

Mankind was in bondage to sin and death. Man was less than human (man missed the mark of what it is man was created to be).

This is a curse. Man's mind was set on the flesh and all flesh must perish. The wages of sin is death. Because of sin man suffers and dies.

The Word became flesh. Christ became man, became a curse for us, was made sin. But although He suffered the wages of sin He had never sinned.

Christ died "under the curse", "under the powers of darkness", "by the hands of wicked men's. He experienced the entire experience of man (from birth to death), a "man of sorrows, acquainted with grief, tempted in all points as are we)....but without sin.

Christ rose for the grave having gained victory over the powers of darkness, over sin, over death, over Satan. He took upon Himself our sin, experienced the wages earned, the product of sin.

He gives us Life - Spiritual life. He is human where we were not. He perfectly obeyed God.

In Him we are recreated spiritually, as new creations, without condemnation.

 

[Alan Gross]

I have gotten confused here. I don't know if there is a verse that specifically says his death was payment in our place, but that seems the only conclusion for why he died, but someone said something that made it seem like they think he did not die in our place?

I am not trying to get into a huge theological issue, I am not sure why this would have divided opinion. What is the best way to see the relevant Bible verses on this?

Thank you for any help.
Jason

Jason, I have had a lot to say about this here recently and here are some thoughts from this post: Jesus Christ was a Penal Substitutionary Fidejussor, from Eternity Past.

There are many relevant Bible verses used, down through 3 posts, with many Bible words that God uses to express Jesus dying for our sins, that specifically says his death was payment in our place,

verses being utterly dogmatic in using an esoteric definition for a word the Bible uses in a figure of speech by analogy, metaphor, or comparison, to "build a new doctrine on", that is intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized agreement, within themselves, to attempt relating that interest they have to other scriptures (while turning them on their heads and possibly exalting evil rather than God):

That's proven to be very reckless.

 

[Alan Gross]

So nice to see Jesus and the Gospel exalted.

Very, very nice.

The glorious truth that God justly punished His Son for sins imputed to Him and that God is just to justify sinners based on Christ’s righteousness imputed to them is the heart of the Gospel, the reality of real substitution, and the glory of God’s people. It is one of the major truths separating true Christianity from all false religions.

They back up the Biblical position of the gospel of Christ that Christ died for the sins of His people.

God justified His elect, who are wicked and ungodly by nature and by practice, through the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to them. God also condemned and punished the Lord Jesus Christ, the just ONE, through the sins of His elect imputed to Him.

God does not impute trespasses to His people. He does not charge them with sin or its debt. To whom did God charge them? He charged them to Jesus Christ as the Substitute and Surety of His people. God the Father “made Him to be sin for us.” This is the imputation of the debt of the sins of God’s elect to Christ.

A surety is one who willingly takes responsibility for another’s debt. In the everlasting covenant of grace, the Lord Jesus Christ willingly agreed to take responsibility for the sins, the debt, of His people."

Hebrews 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

Hebrews 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

 

[Alan Gross]

To impute means to “lay to the charge or account of” in the matter of the demerit or debt of sin or the merit or credit of righteousness. It has to do with one being legally and justly charged with the responsibility and liability of a debt owed or a debt paid.

Onesimus comes to mind.

 

[JonC]

Right. I think that someone other than you has been convinced somehow that Christ's death was not payment, and no matter how clear the implications of numerous verses, they will try and refute it.

I think we have to allow room for other views. Traditional Christianity did not hold that Christ's death was a payment. Ransom Theory (one form of it anyway) held that Christ's death was a ransom but not a payment.

Augustine viewed Christ's death as a ransom but definitely not a payment (he viewed His death as an exchange).

Justin Martyr viewed Christ's death as a type of solidarity with the "human family", but not a payment.

Irenaeus viewed Christ's death as recapturing what was lost in humanity, but not a payment.

Athanasius viewed Christ's death as a reconciliation (of man and God) but not a payment.

I mention those few, but there are many more.

The reason I mention them is not that it disproves Christ's death as a payment but it points to the silliness of assuming it is a logical conclusion.

The idea that Christ died as a payment is relatively new to the Christian faith. That does not mean it is wrong. But assuming the great "cloud of witnesses" that came before the Reformation were all illogical is a bit .... well.... illogical.


Is it possible that no Christian understood Christ's death before the 16th Century, that they got the Atonement wrong? Yes. It is possible. But it is not probable.