Nature of the Atonement

What evidence is snowballing against me? I have addressed every text that purports to show Jesus as being punished and showed how it could be interpreted otherwise.

About the word "curse". In Genesis 3 it is shown that an object can be cursed - in this case the ground - without the object of the verb "cursed" being punished. This is really beyond debate. The verb is "cursed", the object of the verb is "the ground". And since, presumably the ground cannot be punished, the case is made.

The fact that the cursing of the ground is then used to punish man is entirely beside the point. You are making an argument of the form:

1. I want to punish Fred;
2. I short-sheet Fred's bed to punish him.
3. Therefore any other use of the verb "short-sheet" implies punishment.

This is simply not correct. So the case that "curse" need not connote punishment has been established.

I have never denied that Jesus recieved the "punishment". I claim that this act - the act of receiving the punishment - is no more an act of God saying "Jesus, you are being punished" than I am being "punished" if I pay someone else's fine.

If I pay a fine or take lashes for someone else's deed, I can perfectly legitimately claim that I bear the punishment without the authorities engaging in an act of punishment for me.

In short, if the law demands a fine of $ 1000 for Fred's speeding, and if I were to satisfy that demands of the law by paying for Fred, a reasonable person can say "Andre is not being punished, he is bearing someone else's punishment".

This distinction may not seem important, or to be one of mere semantics, but I think it is vital - non-believers who are told that Jesus is being punished rightly think of a capricious and malevolent god who, for no apparent reason, has to punish someone in order to solve the sin problem.

Yes, there is some kind of mysterious "payment" going on, but I submit that God should not be thought of as punishing Jesus, as much as using Jesus as the means to make the payment. There are a lot of other interesting issues here that might be helpful to look into.

But notwithstanding all this, my real point in starting this thread was to look at the other aspect of the atonement - the breaking of the power of sin in the world so that it no longer has such a powerful grip on us in respect to our actions in the future.

But it appears that we agree that Jesus indeed "made the payment" for our sins at the Cross.

 

I think I am being entirely consistent:

1. I have indeed claimed that sin is like a "force" or "real thing" that was broken on the cross.

2. I have indeed denied that Jesus was "punished"

3. I have indeed affirmed that Jesus "bore our punishment"

4. You seem to think that I cannot hold views 2 and 3 since you seem to hold that if Jesus bears someone else's punishment, then Jesus must be "being punished". I can understand why your position seems appealing, but I think there is a problem with it.

5. There is no inconsistency between points 1 and 3 - the atonment can both "deal with payment for past (and even future) sin" and break the power of sin (as a force or agency).

Returning to the subtle distinction between "bearing punishment" and "being punished".

The very concept of "being punished", if we are to be true to the way we deploy this concept, involves the view that the person who is punished has been deemed morally responsible for the transgression for which he is punished. I claim that God does not see Jesus as morally responsible for the transgressions that we have committed. How could that be anyway? - Jesus has not, in fact, committed any transgressions. To believe that He has is to believe an untruth. And that seems an unlikely thing for God to do.

But, if for some admittedly mysterious reason, our sin needs to be "erased" or "deleted" and, equally mysteriously, if this means that our "sins" have to be "transferred" or "moved" into the flesh of Jesus in order to be erased, then we can indeed claim that Jesus bears "our punishment" without being punished himself.

I agree that this is a subtle distinction, but I do think it is an important one. I think many non-believers have been put off by the image of a vindictive God who cannot simply "forgive" sin, He has to punish someone.