Why did Christ have to atone and suffer?

[Anonymous]

Hey guys. Haven’t posted for a while, but I actually got to attend grown up church today (normally in nursery) and the lesson made me ponder. The lesson was on Christ’s trial and crucifixion. It was actually pretty spiritual and well prepared lesson, but something left a little niggle in my grey matter that I can’t get rid of. The teacher asked at the first of class, that he wanted us to pretend that a child asked us why the plan required Jesus had to be put to death and we’d discuss it at the end of class. I thought about it a bit, and couldn’t come up with a good answer. Finally the teacher got back to that question, and the basic answer was that Jesus had to die to experience the pain and anguish that we would suffer -including spiritual and physical death. And of course he had to atone for our sins and take upon him all of the pain and suffering we would ever cause or experience. So that was the answer. He had to because that was the plan.

But of course I wanted to ask, why was that required? What kind of loving father required one of his children to be punished above all others, so that he can accept forgiveness from the rest? Why did he have to suffer for us? I don’t mean to diminish the sacrifice, but it seems like God could have just either let us suffer individually, or just forgiven us if we deserve it (which is what the plan says happens anyway). So why create a plan that requires a terrible tortuous weekend of suffering for your most noble child?

At risk of blasphemy, it kind of sounds like a weird plan, doesn’t it? “OK, I will send you to a world where you will all fail – some quite miserably. There is no way you can succeed, but that is OK. I will then send a half-god down there that can win and after he triumphs I will allow him to be beaten, mocked and tortured and then everything will be cool as long as you guys tell him thanks and say sorry for your failures.”

[Anonymous]

I don’t agree with the explanation given by the teacher. One of the principles that really pushed me toward becoming a Mormon years ago was the Law of Justice and Mercy — clearly described in the BoM — and I think THAT answers the question better than the way the well-prepared teacher answered it.

The reason Christ had to atone and suffer, if I have this right, is the need to reconcile our tendencies to sin, and God’s divine attribute of mercy, with God’s need to enforce justice for sin. So, Christ took the punishment for our sins in order to preserve the just world (presumably, the God is just when sin is punished, and righteousness rewarded at some point) allowing Christ to impose a new set of requirements on us — requirements that we grow and perfect ourselves and eventually become sinless (providing mercy).

MercynGrace probably has a deeper interpretation that I welcome….but for me, the need for a Savior makes sense in the context of the Law of Justice and Mercy. No one was able to explain that to me until the missionaries did.

[Anonymous]

In the Old Testament days, atonement, or sacrifice for sin could only be made under certain conditions. The lamb (or whichever animal) had to be pure and spotless. Jesus was pure and spotless. He was the only one who could make such a sacrifice on our behalf. It was not just because it was part of the plan. Christ came to fulfill the law, and as such, had to be offered not just as a sacrifice of being put to death. That could have been done in any number of ways. It had to be a blood sacrifice. I don’t have time to get into all the scriptural references about this at the moment, but he came to fulfill the law and the prophets, so the way he died was as important as the fact he had to die.

[Anonymous]

The simplest answer I would give to a child is that humans need symbolism in their lives that are powerful and compelling. I then woulde explain the symbolism of the scapegoat and talk about how powerful it is for a God to be the Great Scapegoat – especially in a culture at that time that used the scapegoat in its actual ceremonies. I would say that I have no clue whatsoever how Jesus actually suffered for our sins and weaknesses and mistakes and pain and every other bad thing we experience – but I really love the idea and symbol of a Great, Loving, Suffering-Along-With-Us-to-Truly-Understand-Us God.

If I was talking with an older child who could understand deeper things, I would go into more detail about my own view of the symbolic vs. the literal, but for a younger child, I would keep it to the simpler outline above.

[Anonymous]

To understand it, I think you have to turn it around. Instead of “why did he have to suffer?”, I prefer to think that it is an example of the supreme sacrifice. It is the ultimate service to others, the greatest gesture etc…

Because we have agency, and because of natural processes, there is evil in the world. We have to rise above it, and sometimes that means sticking our neck out. We suffer, but the point is, that suffering can lead to good things. We appreciate good more because of the bad – that’s a core principle of Mormonism, and one of its best aspects.

[Anonymous]

Brown, it is an interesting question. I don’t know what I think about the Law of Justice and Mercy. It seems like a primitive way of religion. Certainly it fits well with what the ancient Israelites believed, but I’m not so sure that God really needs justice for sin. He keeps telling us not to worry about justice (turn the other cheek, give your cloak, etc). While I believe God doesn’t want us to sin, and perhaps the atonement is a “Law of Moses” way to not commit sin, I think God is “bigger” than that. If we can be exalted, there will be no reason to commit sin, and therefore the atonement isn’t useful anymore. That’s really what God is aiming for–to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man–not to punish Jesus for our sins. Such a concept seems like a “lower law” IMO.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

The reason Christ had to atone and suffer, if I have this right, is the need to reconcile our tendencies to sin, and God’s divine attribute of mercy, with God’s need to enforce justice for sin. So, Christ took the punishment for our sins in order to preserve the just world (presumably, the God is just when sin is punished, and righteousness rewarded at some point) allowing Christ to impose a new set of requirements on us — requirements that we grow and perfect ourselves and eventually become sinless (providing mercy).

Cleon Skousen gave a talk that I have read called The Atonement. Bro. Skousen takes SD’s Justice vs. Mercy concept and kicks it around a bit. The part that I find so intriguing is that (according to Bro. Skousen) it is not God that demands justice but creation. All the particulates that make up rocks, trees, dirt, even outer space – they perfectly fulfill the measure of their creation. Why should the humans who are given such an amazing opportunity as to be formed in the very image of the Father and yet who still fall flat on their face – why should they receive mercy? Bro. Skousen makes the point (supported by scripture) that only the impassioned intervention (i.e. atonement) of someone that every particulate respected and loved would convince them to abdicate the demands of Justice.

In pondering some of M&G’s comments coupled with Bother Skousen’s talk, I have wondered:

What happens when I who remain unmoved by the pleas of the Christ for and in behalf of my offender refuse to forgive?

JS said that -he who had no accusers would enter heaven- (paraphrase). If I insist on being an accuser for my brother, am I undermining the atonement? (Also one of the names for the adversary is “accuser of the brethren”)

As I ponder the scriptures that state that he who will not forgive retains the bigger sin and “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us.’ theytake new meaning for me. I am lead to new possibilities of what “communal salvation” might look like.

Inspiring stuff!

[Anonymous]

mormonheretic wrote:

Brown, it is an interesting question. I don’t know what I think about the Law of Justice and Mercy. It seems like a primitive way of religion. Certainly it fits well with what the ancient Israelites believed, but I’m not so sure that God really needs justice for sin. He keeps telling us not to worry about justice (turn the other cheek, give your cloak, etc). While I believe God doesn’t want us to sin, and perhaps the atonement is a “Law of Moses” way to not commit sin, I think God is “bigger” than that. If we can be exalted, there will be no reason to commit sin, and therefore the atonement isn’t useful anymore. That’s really what God is aiming for–to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man–not to punish Jesus for our sins. Such a concept seems like a “lower law” IMO.

Further to this idea that perhaps God doesn’t NEED justice (although the BoM says without it, God would cease to be God), perhaps M&G and Rob Bells concept that eventually, everyone goes to Heaven — after they change their character. Could justice be found in the delay between our death, and our eventual salvation in the highest of kingdoms, only after we have truly changed our character? Almost like delaying your life and being left in the lower grades until you pass is a form of “punishment” and “justice” at the same time?

[Anonymous]

Cleon Skousen gave an interesting speculative theology speech (which turned into a paper) related to this topic:

http://reperiendi.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/the-atonement-by-cleon-skousen/

I got a hold of this some 20+ years ago when I was on my mission, when it was a somewhat underground paper being passed around to deep-doctrine types (pre-internet, photo copies of photo copies, etc.).

Anyway, I think he came up with an interesting resolution to the paradox of the Atonement using fairly unique Mormon concepts. I’m not really one to be all that attached to a single correct answer to these questions anymore, but I thought this one was a well-thought and fascinating explanation of WHY there had to be an Atonement.

For those who aren’t inclined to read the whole paper, i can boil it down to this:

God created intelligences, as described in the PofGP. These intelligences were given free agency and unlimited potential, but the law is the law. If they choose to advance, and they do the work to develop and obey the guidance on how-to, then they advance. If they choose not to, then the law restricts their nature and essence. This causes a grading of intelligences from lowest to highest: highest being God / Jesus. Lowest being? I don’t know, molecules of space dust? *shrug* Brother Skousen doesn’t elaborate.

So … human intelligences are most like God, and gain a human body in mortal life. If they do not obey the law, then they must be restricted from advancement. If God gave us a free pass, He would cease to be God and lose control of all creation. All the intelligences would rebel? It would be inconsistent and unjust to allow one type of intelligence to disobey AND restrict all the other intelligences.

So here is where the atonement comes in. Jesus was most like God. All intelligences obey God because they love God. Only humans are advanced enough to even conceive of disobeying God. It’s the catch 22: you have to advance to be like God, but at the risk of gaining the ability to disobey God. Jesus suffers and pays a punishment so severe that is horrifies all of creation. The full fury of Hell is unleashed upon the Savior, and all of creation is repulsed by this loving sacrifice, because Jesus is also the most beloved and admired of all the intelligences.

So … when Jesus says to the universe: Look, they screwed up. For my sake, please give them a pass. I paid the price. God wants them to advance. I know it isn’t fair that you other intelligences are held back by the law. But for my sake, can you overlook their error and accept that they will now be obedient to the law?

And the universe accepts this out of love for Jesus / Jehovah.

[Anonymous]

Brian, isn’t that what I just said? 👿

But seriously, thank you for the link and the more detailed summary of Bro. Skousen’s “speculative theology speech.”

I think I jumped ahead because I was more interested in the implications of this theory on the refusal to forgive.

Brian Johnston wrote:

So … when Jesus says to the universe: Look, they screwed up. For my sake, please give them a pass. I paid the price. God wants them to advance. I know it isn’t fair that you other intelligences are held back by the law. But for my sake, can you overlook their error and accept that they will now be obedient to the law?

And the universe accepts this out of love for Jesus / Jehovah.

Roy wrote:

What happens when I (who remain unmoved by the pleas of the Christ for and in behalf of my offender) refuse to forgive?

JS said that -he who had no accusers would enter heaven- (paraphrase). If I insist on being an accuser for my brother, am I undermining the atonement? (Also one of the names for the adversary is “accuser of the brethren”)

This may serve to explain why such an emphasis is placed on forgiveness. And why those that are self-righteous and judgmental of others are so strongly condemned.

[Anonymous]

Brown wrote:

What kind of loving father required one of his children to be punished above all others, so that he can accept forgiveness from the rest? Why did he have to suffer for us?

I don’t think the question is phrased right.

I don’t think God said, “OK, let’s make a plan where someone must suffer beyond comprehension … any volunteers?”

The way we are taught the Atonement, it is framed in a world-view concept so we can understand some things. In our world, it makes sense to us to have a price on things so everything is fair for everyone (equal opportunity, no discrimination). If you have the money to pay for a car, you can buy it. Anyone with money can buy it. Anyone without money can’t buy it. If those that don’t have money are worthy to live up to contract deals, they can enter into a covenant with someone else who already has money to get help getting the car now. That makes sense to us in our world-view of justice and scarcity and capitalism and time. It is a good story. It is truth.

The question in the thread headline would be the same as asking, “Why do Banks have to lend to consumers?” Does it seem like a loving God would require such a thing of rich people to create banking institutions to give to others who haven’t generated value enough to have money, just so God can allow these people without money to drive cars they can’t afford or haven’t earned the right to buy yet? Why did God create money? Why do the rich people have to lend it?

The teacher’s response to the question in the OP would be like saying that banks lend so they can understand poverty and the suffering that poor, unfortunate souls go through. Well, maybe when the banks lend money to help people consume goods, they do appreciate their riches more, and maybe it feels good to help the less fortunate and there is some philanthropy generated that is good … but that’s not what is REQUIRING the situation. The answer is they don’t HAVE to lend … they are able to. And by being able to, they get more reward, more power, more growth, more glory.

I think the car and bank can be a metaphor to help us understand the Atonement, even though it is not exactly the same thing…it helps teach the concept. I think the Atonement as taught to us by the church is also a good metaphor to really understanding love and salvation in a way our brains can kinda get it.

[Anonymous]

Sorry for starting this thread and then not being able to check back for a week. I appreciate the responses.

Heber13 wrote:

Brown wrote:

The question in the thread headline would be the same as asking, “Why do Banks have to lend to consumers?” Does it seem like a loving God would require such a thing of rich people to create banking institutions to give to others who haven’t generated value enough to have money, just so God can allow these people without money to drive cars they can’t afford or haven’t earned the right to buy yet? Why did God create money? Why do the rich people have to lend it?

My response would be that Banks lend to consumers because they are run by greedy humans that want to make even more money. God allowed them the free agency to create a financial system and also to seek worldly riches. God did not create money. I understand this type of inequality because it was created by the fallible human.

[Anonymous]

The problem I have with the justice and mercy doctrine is that this game we call life is rigged. Everyone automatically fails the test and needs mercy. It’s the exact opposite of what we are told was Satan’s plan. Instead of everybody automatically winning, everyone automatically loses. I don’t mean to mock the plan, but it frustrates me to be taking a test that nobody can pass.

Now I understand life was designed to learn and grow, but if it is a lesson, why are there eternal consequences based on how well you can grasp the material and how fast you can apply it? Even more frustrating is that your ability to excel in this “class” is determined by things you have no control over, such as your parents, your genetic predispositions, and your place of birth. Why are most put in situations where the learning material will never be made available. And why is the learning material so vague as to be impossible to fully grasp until the class is over?

So again, it seems like this is just a strange plan and I can’t believe anyone would have signed up for it knowing they could not possibly succeed without causing so much pain to Jesus. So something doesn’t add up. Either we were not told of the impossibility to escape sin, or we were not told of how much agony would be required of Christ to pay for our sin, or we don’t really understand the atonement at all.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

or we don’t really understand the atonement at all.

Bingo!

We see through our glass, darkly, indeed – but the one aspect of the Atonement that makes the most sense to me is that it will work somehow through the grace of God – that there is a purpose to life that can’t be thwarted by our stupidity and weakness.

To me, all the rest is just our best attempts to figure it out in a way that makes the most sense to us – which is why I am open to all kinds of interpretations, even ones that are way out there. I definitely am not a literalist when it comes to this topic.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Brian, isn’t that what I just said? 👿

Well … I feel dumb. Hehe. Sorry Roy. I thought I had already read through all the responses when I posted. I missed yours and a couple others.

I think you focused on a really important aspect of the talk — our responsibility to forgive, our need to forgive.

[Author]

Posts