Close Topic Options

Of The Atonement, Mercy, Justice And Suffering.

In the LDS Church, we hear alot how "Christ suffered for our sins," so we could be forgiven. In parables like Elder Packer's "The Mediator" there's the imagery of a debt being owed to a creditor, and a "savior" paying the debt and freeing his friend. But does this really mean that the atonement was just Christ suffering the punishment for our sins, so that we wouldn't have to if we repent? It is clear that Christ suffered infinitely in Gethsemane and on Calvary, but was it nothing more than Jesus taking our metaphorical/spiritual whipping for us?

I've often read and re-read Alma 34:11-12 and thought that perhaps the suffering of Christ was something altogether different from the Primary-lesson explanation of the atonement:

To me, this is saying that if a law is just or fair, it will not assign the consequences of one person's actions to a different person. If I steal and must spend two years in jail, it isn't just for my brother to serve my sentence for me just because I'm really sorry and promise not to do it again. What judge in the world would transfer my guilty verdict to my brother just because he volunteered to serve my prison term for me? Would that be just? Would that be fair?

I'm defining justice as: "administering the law; enforcing the law." Justice also connotes "fairness," or an eye for an eye. Specifically, it's not just any 'ole eye for an eye...justice requires the eye of him who poked out the other guy's eye. Justice is not merely concerned with righting wrongs, but with making the person who was in the wrong, make things right. I have a hard time believing a God of laws and justice could arbitrarily re-assign the punishment for our sins to Christ just because Jesus asks Him to. I don't see the atonement as a progression of events like: We sin; God raises the flail of Justice to punish us; we repent; Christ steps in the way just in time to receive our whipping for us. Why don't I believe this is what happens? Alma 34:14-15 explains it.

Verse 15 intrigues me. Read backwards in terms of concepts, we find: Men can repent; because they have faith; that justice's demands have been overpowered; by the bowels of mercy; which result from Christ's atoning sacrifice. I find it interesting that verse 15 says the bowels of mercy overpower justice. My dictionary defines "overpower" as: defeat or overcome with superior strength; be too intense for; overwhelm. If the atonement is just quid-pro-quo, if it just involves transferring our punishments to Christ, then that has nothing to do with overpowering justice. Rather, that's doing what justice demands, namely, to dispense a punishment when a law is broken.

To me, overpowering justice would involve removing the demand that someone be punished, period. That's not the same as removing the demand that we be punished if Christ suffers in our place. Overpowering justice would mean no one has to receive the punishment, not us or Christ. I'll use a courtroom analogy to illustrate these two different models of the atonement.

The first model of how the atonement works (the one I hear taught in Church) goes like this:
JUDGE: The defendant is found guilty of arson. He will serve a prison term of no less than five years.
DEFENSE LAWYER: Your Honor, the defendant's brother has volunteered to serve this prison term. I request that you transfer the conviction and judgment to the defendant's brother, and let my client go free.
JUDGE: Why should I do this?
DEFENSE LAWYER: Because the defendant's brother has never committed a crime, is an upstanding citizen, and loves his brother.
JUDGE: Motion granted. Bailiff, release the defendant and take his brother into custody.

The second model of how the atonement works (the one I'm pondering) would go like this:
JUDGE: The defendant is found guilty of arson. He will serve a prison term of no less than five years.
DEFENSE LAWYER: Your Honor, I'm requesting that the prosecution drop all charges and that you dismiss this case against my client.
JUDGE: On what grounds?

On what grounds indeed. What could be so powerful that "the prosecutor" would drop all charges against the sinner, and that "the judge" would dismiss the case against us? What would be so compelling as to overpower justice's demands against us sinners? How about the life of a perfect, innocent God?

What I hear most people say is that Christ gave his life while suffering the punishment for our sins. However, I believe that Christ's death on the cross is ultimately the act that overpowers justice, in that Christ presents his perfect innocence and the blood he gave while being murdered on the cross as sufficient reasons to "dismiss the charges" against us. Why would justice cease to demand that we be punished? For Christ's sake, literally.

It's rather ironic that justice is overpowered by the ultimate injustice (Christ's crucifixion and death). In fact, when we show mercy or feel pity for someone, it's usually because they've experienced an injustice; something has happened to them that they didn't deserve.

So again, I don't believe Jesus received the specific punishment for our specific sins and that's why we can be forgiven. To be sure, being crucified in the process of redeeming us is a punishment. What I'm saying, though, is that I don't think Christ "served our prison sentence" in our place. Here are a few scriptures that are key to me and my belief:

I find it interesting that in the last two passages quoted above, Jesus doesn't mention that he "served our prison sentence" for us and that's why we can be forgiven. In fact in D&C 45, in what I call the true Intercessory Prayer, Jesus calls attention to his innocence and spilled blood as reasons for God to forgive us.

While much of the Law of Moses was symbolic, I also find it interesting that the blood of the sacrificial animals (bullock and lamb especially) is what "cleansed Israel of sin." The high priest didn't stone the lamb in place of the adulterer, etc... Rather, because the sacrificial animal was free of spot, "innocent," it's blood (which was it's life, remember Lev. 17:11) made forgiveness of sins possible.

Now some of you may say, "Well if a punishment isn't given for sinning, that's robbing justice!" Not so. If Mosaic justice demanded that an adulterer be stoned, and that adulterer wasn't stoned, that would be robbing justice. But if the requirement for the adulterer to be stoned was removed, that isn't robbing justice, it's overpowering justice. Alma 42:13, 15, 22, 24-25 explains these concepts very well.

I'm not sure if this distinction makes much sense to any of you. I'd be interested in knowing what you guys think of my views from an LDS viewpoint, especially in light of the quotes from LDS scripture that I've provided. To recap, I don't believe Christ suffered the punishment for our sins that the law demanded. Rather, I believe that on behalf of the truly repentant, Christ stands before God in our place and cites his perfect innocence and voluntarily sacrificed life, and with this ultimate injustice arousing pity in God's heart, Christ asks for us to be forgiven for his sake. Christ's sacrifice removes the demand for anyone to sit in prison, whether Christ or us.

Message Edited... Persephone: Please learn how to use the Quote Tags. See our Constructive Posting Policy.

Suffering Justice Mercy Atonement Of

Great stuff.
I am glad to see your thoughts on atonement posted. I have to agree with what you have said. I have reservations myself and as many others do about this belief of atonement theory that you are questioning. Actually what you are describing and questioning is called the penal-substitution theory. This view was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. I find it interesting how such an old theory of atonement has so much weight in general ideas of atonement. In fact there is a lot of work in LDS circles questioning this idea. The points that you made are some of the classic questions/ criticisms about penal-substitution, and as for Packer's "The mediator" it has a lot of uncertainties as you have described. With that said I would like to ask some questions.

You talk about overpowering justice, and I believe that Alma does stress this point that you picked up on. (I like how you worded this.) My question to you then is whose justice is overpowered? Is it God's justice? Or perhaps someone else's justice? If it is God's justice then why does God need to be moved by a point of violence of his son in order to be overpowered by mercy?

I like this idea. I was glad to see how you referred to Christ death as a murder in your post. I think that the gospels do point to Jesus" death as the ultimate injustice thus generating mercy for atonement. I believe that the justice that Christ took upon himself was our demands of justice that we lay on others as carnal man. Christ was accused, judged and executed by man, thus exposing our demands for justice as a great injustice towards God. I have to ask if you have read any Rene Girard? You seem to carry some of his ideas.

Of The Atonement, Mercy, Justice And Suffering. Studies Doctrine Mormon

The genealogy of atonement views/theories is interesting: ransom (Origen); satisfaction (Anselm); penal-substitution (Aquinas/Calvin); moral influence (Abelard/Finney); moral governmental (Arminius/Grotius); Christus Victor (Aulen); et al...

One thing they all have in common--despite their differences--is that they are based solely on the Bible and the writings of the Early Church Fathers (for the most part).

But we have more than that. We have the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, not to mention latter-day prophets and apostles' opinions.

While I disagree with a literal application of the symbolism in "The Mediator" to the actual atonement, Elder Packer does successfully illustrate the fact that we need outside help to overcome our sins, and that Christ is the only help that will do. I do not think it is an effective tool if understanding the mechanics of how the atonement overpowers justice is the goal (but that is just my opinion).

This enters an area of personal opinion mixed with scriptural interpretation, so I'll say up front that I alone am responsible for my views and do not claim they are 100% accurate. I believe several things must be understood in order for the workings of the atonement to be clear:

FIRST: I believe "good" and "evil" are self-existent concepts, that no being or god legislated or created them, and that before we were spiritually born, we all comprehended these eternal standards (D&C 93:31). Furthermore, as demonstrated by the War in Heaven, I believe a majority of beings will always support right over wrong. There is something in us that is drawn towards goodness and light (though we may ignore that attraction and choose darkness instead, by sinning).

SECOND: I believe justice is also a self-existent concept, that all "intelligences" or beings comprehend it as naturally as they do good and evil. The eternal Law of the Harvest dictates that good comes to those who do good, and evil comes to those who do evil. We reap what we sow. I'm defining justice as administration of the Law of the Harvest. The demands of justice are that good acts be rewarded, and evil acts be punished. Justice is robbed when an evil act is not punished, or a good act is not rewarded; an injustice is when the Law of the Harvest is disregarded.

THIRD: I do not believe God has a magic wand that makes us obey Him, or gives Him power. I believe God reveals the source of His power in D&C 121:45-46. He loves us, His scepter (symbolizing power to rule) is one of righteousness (which inspires trust and respect in the majority of His children), and His kingdom flows to Him without being compelled (the majority of His children voluntarily obey Him). God derives power from being honored, and He is honored because He is good. In addition, He rewards goodness and punishes evil. We have confidence because He is just and His kingdom is one of order.

FOURTH: I believe the degree of mercy we show others is equal to the amount of pity we feel for others. We feel pity when someone's suffering is not a result of evil choices on their part. This reversal of the Law of the Harvest constitutes an injustice, for goodness is not supposed to be punished, but rewarded. So injustices arouse pity, and pity prompts us to show mercy. Thus, the only way to evoke a supreme show of mercy is with a supreme feeling of pity, and that can only be aroused by an ultimate injustice. Since a reversal of the Law of the Harvest is an injustice, then the ultimate injustice would involve a perfectly righteous and innocent person being:

(1) Prosecuted for and convicted of being unrighteous; and,
(2) Receiving the most severe punishment reserved for the guilty, namely, the death penalty.

That's precisely what happened to Christ. He was accused of blasphemy because he taught the truth; he was convicted even though he was innocent; he was scourged like a guilty man; and he received the death penalty in two forms: he experienced physical death (crucifixion) and spiritual death (separation from God on the cross, the "why hast thou forsaken me?" moment). This is reflected in the Law of Moses. What determines which lamb out of a flock is chosen for the sacrifice? The lamb that is spotless and free of any blemish must die. In essence, it's being killed for being spotless, just as Christ was.

So how does all this relate to the atonement overpowering justice? Suppose God wants to forgive me of some sin against goodness that I've committed. He doesn't want to punish my wickedness. This would be unjust. Well so what, you may say. He's God, He can do anything He wants! Or can He? Remember, if God ceases to be good, He ceases to have our confidence and respect, and when we stop respecting Him and trusting Him we stop voluntarily obeying Him.

Without an atonement, the result of God letting even one wicked deed go unpunished is that He would lose the support of the majority of His spirit children who prefer good over evil, and who demand the administration of justice (Law of the Harvest). If God were to reward sin, instead of punishing it, He would commit an injustice and the majority of His spirit children would cease to voluntarily obey Him. In essence, God would be giving up His power if He showed mercy without Christ's atonement.

So whose justice must be overcome by the atonement? God's and ours. In a sense, Christ is our advocate with not just the Father but with everyone else too. When he asks God to forgive me for his own sake, he's implicitly asking that majority of spirits who demand justice to cease demanding justice as well. He's not asking God or them to let him be whipped in my place, for that would rob justice which says reap what you sow, not what someone else sows. No, he's asking God and them to stop demanding that anyone be whipped, period. This isn't robbing justice, it's overpowering justice. If the majority of God's voluntarily obedient spirits felt pity enough to show me mercy for Christ's sake, [b]they would not object to God extending mercy to me in the form of forgiveness.

It would still be just for God to punish me, but after I demonstrate godly sorrow and a change of heart, and after Christ asks for mercy on my behalf, the infinite magnitude of the injustice visited upon Christ overshadows and outshines any demands of justice, and arouses a pity so strong that everyone loses their appetite for seeing me "get what I deserve."

At this point, if God were to have mercy on me and forgive me, He would retain His goodness in the eyes of His children; they'd retain their respect for and obedience to Him; and I'd retain my freedom from sin. In this way, the ultimate injustice overpowers justice. There's more I could say, but I want to see what you think of my answers to you thus far.

Edited: OneWhoServes on 27th Feb, 2007 - 10:04am

Suffering Justice Mercy Atonement Of

Thanks for your reply.
This is good. It is similar Cleon Skousen's atonement ideas that he has written. I have no problem with them, but some unanswered question that I am still working out in my mind. It seems to me to be kind of a moral influence theology, which I have no problem with. However It does carry a Pelagian feel to it.

Here are some of my thoughts:

I feelt he mercy is from love not pity. Christ does not show me mercy because he pity's me, but rather he loves me. Thus Mercy is produced for others because of my love for or in Christ. That is how I generate mercy.

Where I part with skousen is the idea that God's since of justice needs to be overcome. Reason being is that in the gospel's Jesus never seems to have a problem with overcoming his justice. If Jesus is like the father in all things, then if God needed justice to be satisfied per say then we would have seen Jesus needing justice satisfied. If he needed our justice satisfied in order for his justice to be satisfied then we would have saw Jesus evoking the Pharisees, and Sadducees to have mercy on the leper before he could pronounce him clean. I just do not see this in the gospels or BOM. Jesus just forgives despite what others and other intelligences say. His mercy seems independent of them.
Perhaps part of the atonement is to bring us to his level of charity, by getting us to rid our demands of justice and generate his love?

The other hurdle that I have with skousen's and England's atonement idea is that the atonement is merely a social contract theory of what we agree will be forgiven but just what could justify our judgments of forgiveness remains unexplained. I also have problems with D&C 19 that says the Christ suffers for our sins. Does this mean more then a universal suffering as skousen suggests or is it more personal individual level? I am still working on this idea. However what I am leaning too is that the atonement does not to appease God since of offense or justice, but more our since of justice. Have you ever read Blake T. Ostler's compassion atonement theory? It is discussed in his new series of books on Mormon theology.
Oh well that is some thoughts off the top of my head.

Suffering Justice Mercy Atonement Of

This is the LDS section where LDS doctrine is discussed. We are now entering a field of just personal opinion mixed with scripture interpretation as it was stated.

This topic is discussed fully: The Atonement, By Cleon Skousen

*Thread closed*