Forgiveness vs payment of a debt (theories of the atonement)

[Joel]

I recall coming across someone who argued that Jesus did not pay our debt of sin, but rather that God forgave our debt, so that it did not need to be paid (payment and forgiveness of a debt being mutually exclusive: one cannot both forgive a debt and require its payment). He said that nowhere in Scripture says Jesus paid our debt. He said that the reason Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice was not to suffer punishment but to shed his blood for the cleansing and forgiveness of our sins.

This seems to make a lot of sense. Yet also seems to differ from any of the theories of the atonement that I'm aware of.
The ones I'd been aware of seem to have to do with paying the debt: satisfying God's wrath or Justice, or Jesus taking the punishment or blame on himself, or paying a ransom to Satan.

Has someone else heard of this before or know more about it that can help me out?

[Sparko]

Seems to me God forgave our sins BECAUSE Jesus paid the "debt" - otherwise why not just forgive them without Jesus dying?

Romans 6 says the "wages of sin is death" - meaning that when you sin, you "earn" death. Which is not something you want to "earn" - meaning it is a debt you own.

If you "earn" prison for being a murderer, that sentence is a debt you are paying to society for your actions.


also I have heard that when Jesus said "It is finished" on the cross, that was the same word that was stamped on receipts and bills of sale when something was paid for.

[Bill the Cat]

I think it is splitting hairs that don't need to be split. An exercise in "see how smart I can exegete scripture?"

[tabibito]

I recall coming across someone who argued that Jesus did not pay our debt of sin, but rather that God forgave our debt, so that it did not need to be paid (payment and forgiveness of a debt being mutually exclusive: one cannot both forgive a debt and require its payment). He said that nowhere in Scripture says Jesus paid our debt. He said that the reason Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice was not to suffer punishment but to shed his blood for the cleansing and forgiveness of our sins.

This seems to make a lot of sense. Yet also seems to differ from any of the theories of the atonement that I'm aware of.
The ones I'd been aware of seem to have to do with paying the debt: satisfying God's wrath or Justice, or Jesus taking the punishment or blame on himself, or paying a ransom to Satan.

Has someone else heard of this before or know more about it that can help me out?

Hebrews does mention that the blood atonement was necessary to cancel the old covenant and institute the new. Hebrews provides a good start point for understanding it all, but only a start: particularly Heb 9: 6-28

[Joel]

Looking around more, I see that there is something called the Christus Victor theory of atonement, and what I described seems maybe similar to that.

I think it is splitting hairs that don't need to be split. An exercise in "see how smart I can exegete scripture?"

That may be. It can also be the case of trying to understand an apparent paradox, and a desire for logical consistency. That is the case with my personality.

One possibility is that what we have is a mystery, and that we must give up the goal of possessing a logically consistent theory of how the atonement works. One explanation I have come across is that all the theories of atonement express some truth of the mystery of atonement, but only by analogy. In which case, each is only in some sense like the atonement: Thus it is only in some sense like having someone take your place in your death sentence. It is only in some sense like having someone pay a debt you owe. It is only in some sense like having the person to whom you owe a debt cancel/forgive the debt. It is only in some sense like someone paying a ransom to free you from a captive. It is only in some sense like Jesus performing an act of surrender and obedience in our place because we are unable. Etc. The idea would be that we have all these analogies which give us some idea but not a direct understanding. And some of the analogies taken literally would contradict one another, but each still gives us some idea of the truth via an analogy.

Perhaps we are to know the effects of the atonement for us, but we are not supposed to understand how it achieves those effects?

Seems to me God forgave our sins BECAUSE Jesus paid the "debt" - otherwise why not just forgive them without Jesus dying?

The seeming contradiction though, is that to require payment for a debt is the opposite of forgiving a debt.

Then, as for why not forgive without Jesus dying? Well, do we know for sure that Jesus' atonement was the only possible way? Perhaps it was the best way? I've read that some Church Fathers thought it was not the only possible way. In searching on this topic, I found that Irenaeus, who is perhaps the first to discuss something like the Ransom theory of atonement, suggests that God could have rescued us from the power of Satan by violence, but that Jesus offering himself as a ransom was a better way. If I recall correctly, also Aquinas argued that it was not the only possible way.

Was it maybe necessary to satisfy the old law, which requires shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sin? The argument in line with the OP would be that although the sprinkling of blood somehow cleansed Israelites from sin, yet it was not the case that either God or the man doing the sacrificing was exercising wrath upon the sacrificial animal, or punishing the animal. Rather it was a ritual required by the Law for the forgiveness of sins. Or the case of the scape-goat, the sins are transferred to the goat, and then the goat is not punished, but sent away--the sins removed along with the removal of the goat.

Tabibito likewise suggested above that "Hebrews does mention that the blood atonement was necessary to cancel the old covenant and institute the new."

To say that we are somehow cleansed by Jesus' blood, and by that, rescued from the power of sin, and our natures restored and reconciled to God, seems perhaps sufficient. (without adding ideas about God being wrathful toward Jesus and/or about penal substitution/satisfaction) However it isn't exactly satisfying, regarding wanting to understand how it achieves those results.

also I have heard that when Jesus said "It is finished" on the cross, that was the same word that was stamped on receipts and bills of sale when something was paid for.

That's interesting. I had not heard that. Do you happen to remember the source of that?

[hedrick]

I agree that the atonement isn't a matter of paying debt, and that God can and does forgive us.

Hebrews does mention that the blood atonement was necessary to cancel the old covenant and institute the new. Hebrews provides a good start point for understanding it all, but only a start: particularly Heb 9: 6-28

I agree. However if you look carefully at the way Heb. 9 uses the OT, it sees Jesus' death as a covenant sacrifice, which really has little to do either with paying a debt or making satisfaction for sin.

[bling]

I recall coming across someone who argued that Jesus did not pay our debt of sin, but rather that God forgave our debt, so that it did not need to be paid (payment and forgiveness of a debt being mutually exclusive: one cannot both forgive a debt and require its payment). He said that nowhere in Scripture says Jesus paid our debt. He said that the reason Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice was not to suffer punishment but to shed his blood for the cleansing and forgiveness of our sins.

This seems to make a lot of sense. Yet also seems to differ from any of the theories of the atonement that I'm aware of.
The ones I'd been aware of seem to have to do with paying the debt: satisfying God's wrath or Justice, or Jesus taking the punishment or blame on himself, or paying a ransom to Satan.

Has someone else heard of this before or know more about it that can help me out?