Did Lord Jesus take the blame instead of us? If yes, Please show me your refrences.
No (so I don’t have give any references :P)
But Jesus was a propitiation for our sins (see the epistles). His was a perfect life offered for our sinful one. It turned out to be a life filled with immense suffering which nonetheless Jesus accepted to undergo in order to have a perfect sacrificial life of obedience on our behalf.
When we are baptized into His Life and Death we are recipients of this perfect life, which cancels out our sinful ones.
The only verse that supports Jesus taking our blame is that one in 2 corinthians 5:12 that says Jesus became sin for us. However, the word used there translated as “sin”, is also used by the Jews to refer to a “sin-offering”. Thus a valid translation is that Jesus became a sin offering for us. (He made Him who knew no sin to be a sin-offering on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.).
He was delivered over to death for our sins(Romans 4:25) What did Saint Paul mean here?
Did Jesus died because we Sin?
You seem to be asking about the difference between “redemption” and “salvation”
From Michelle Arnold in the Ask an Apologist forum:
Basically, redemption is collective and salvation is individual. By his passion, death, and resurrection, Christ redeemed humanity collectively from slavery to sin and from the debt of punishment mankind – as a whole – owed due to sin. Each and every person, Christian or non-Christian, is redeemed because he is a member of the human race.
Salvation is the application of redemption to individuals. Although a member of redeemed humanity, and therefore himself redeemed, a person can freely choose to deliberately reject the graces won for him by Christ and go to hell
My question is about Punishment. Did Lord jesus accepted to be Punished because of our personal sins?
The Sacrifice of Jesus redeemed us all (everyone on earth) from our original sin (the sin of Adam). It gave us the opportunity for salvation apart from our personal sin.
Consequences of Original Sin for us, do exist yet: Propensity to sin, death … even in Christians.
If sacrifice redeemed us from it, why it’s Consequences do exist?
On the other hand, Is original sin ours?! Adam did it, it is not our fault. I thought it’s Consequence is ours.
But what kind of sin can be atoned by a sin offering? In the Orthodox Jewish Bible, the verse is “21 The one who in his person had no da’as of chattat (sin), this one Hashem (God) made a chattat (sin offering)”. Here’s a description of the various types of Jewish “qorbanot” (sacrifices and offerings):
The atoning aspect of qorbanot is limited. For the most part, qorbanot only expiate unintentional sins, that is, sins committed because a person forgot that this thing was a sin. No atonement is needed for violations committed under duress or through lack of knowledge, and for the most part, qorbanot cannot atone for a malicious, deliberate sin. In addition, qorbanot have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.
Chatat: Sin Offering
A sin offering is an offering to atone for and purge a sin. It is an expression of sorrow for the error and a desire to be reconciled with G-d. The Hebrew term for this type of offering is chatat, from the word chayt, meaning “missing the mark.” A chatat could only be offered for unintentional sins committed through carelessness, not for intentional, malicious sins. The size of the offering varied according to the nature of the sin and the financial means of the sinner. Some chatatot are individual and some are communal. Communal offerings represent the interdependence of the community, and the fact that we are all responsible for each others’ sins. A few special chatatot could not be eaten, but for the most part, for the average person’s personal sin, the chatat was eaten by the kohanim (priests).
Excuse my butting in here…but I think that you are hitting on an often overlooked and misunderstood point.
Jesus is sometimes called the “New Adam”. What does this mean?
To me this means that Jesus came into the world like Adam - without original sin.
Of course He was also different from Adam in that, because of Adam’s disobedience (sin) He had knowledge of good and evil. This knowledge is the consequence you mention above.
Jesus then succeeded where Adam failed. He proceeded to live a blameless life resisting all temptation even unto the cross.
So Did Jesus take the blame for us? I don’t think so. Instead, Jesus showed us the possibilities. He showed us that man IS capable (in, with, and through God) of living a blameless life - and where we might falter - we can receive forgiveness and move forward.
Now these things are expressed in different ways in the NT, as is being pointed out. But the fundamental thing to take hold of is this. Where Adam showed us how to fail, Jesus showed us how to succeed.
Where Adam’s and sin led to the consequence of a knowledge that we were not ready to deal with, Jesus’ life and sacrifice leads to a sort of “re-set” - or more accurately the ability to move beyond the consequence of Adam’s sin; To not only know the difference between good and evil, but to be able to obtain the graces, the capacity and the strength to utterly reject evil and hold fast to the good.
Since Calvary - it’s a whole new ball game…Where Adam ate of the tree of Knowledge and fell, Jesus ate of the tree of Life - which is the cross - and was triumphant.
Praise be to God.
I don’t think that Jesus took our blame either.
On the Day of Atonement in the Old Testament, the nation’s sins were laid upon the Scapegoat, who was then led away into the wilderness. The innocent sacrifice died in its place.
The episode with Jesus and Barabbas is a fulfillment of this. Jesus was innocent and Barabbas, the guilty one was set free. Jesus died instead. No guilt was laid on Jesus.
Sin entails a lot of things, but “blame” is not one used by God or the Church to characterize sin.
Excellent point. In studying these matters some time ago, I looked into the definitions of the Hebrew and Greek words most often translated as “sin” and found this.
Sin = Chata’ (Hebrew)
to sin, miss, miss the way, go wrong, incur guilt, forfeit, purify from uncleanness
Sin = Hamartano, (Greek)
To be without a share in; to miss the mark; to err, be mistaken; to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honor; to do or go wrong; to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
So obviously there is more involved in the concept of “sin” than just breaking a commandment or “blame”.
I believe that’s how it works. Better to say though that he took the punishment for us.
…He was wounded for our transgressions, crushed
for our iniquities: the chastisement that brought us
peace was upon him, by his wounds we are healed.
– (Isaiah 53:5)
Hi javid. I think you are asking about the atonement of Jesus on the cross. If I understand you correctly, you are referring to the substitutionary atonement theory. There is no simple explanations online. If your brains can take it, try this discussion on Anselms’ theory - satisfaction view. Otherwise, the only other place is on wikipedia (look for “Atonement (satisfaction view)”.)
Jesus suffered and died for both Original Sin and for our personal sins.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P1O.HTM#109 (It would be good to read all the paragraphs especially 598 through 618.).602… Man’s sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death. By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God “made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned. But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father,** he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name **from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all”, so that we might be “reconciled to God by the death of his Son”.
God takes the initiative of universal redeeming love
604 By giving up his own Son for our sins, God manifests that his plan for us is one of benevolent love, prior to any merit on our part: “In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the** expiation for our sins**.” God “shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.”
Just a comment on the title of the thread…
As I read it again today - I immediately thought…I don’t want Jesus to take the blame for me. I am responsible for my actions. I am a poor and inconstant servant and can only rely on His mercy. Yes I want Jesus to save me. I claim Him as my Lord and King. But the whole idea of Him" taking the blame" for me smacks of dodging responsibility on my part.
If I may paint an image…consider Christ carrying the cross.
The one who thinks that Jesus died for his sins - past present and future - might be seen as riding on the cross - making Jesus burden even heavier.
The one who says - I am guilty and must do better - the one who shoulders the burden of their own sin might be seen as underneath - with Jesus - (or like Simon the Cyrene (sp?)) helping to carry and lightening Jesus’ burden.
Just some thoughts…
Nope. ‘Wounded’, ‘crushed’, ‘chastised’; sure enough, that describes Jesus’ passion. However, Jesus’ passion, death and resurrection weren’t a simple business transaction, in which he exchanged his death for our just punishment. That’s penal substitution, and it’s a part of Reformation theology, not Catholic theology. Penal substitution asserts a debt paid in full – our debt, Jesus’ making good on that debt.
Rather, Catholic theology asserts substitutionary atonement: Jesus’ sacrifice was so full of love and mercy, God forgave the debt that was owed through human sin.
Jesus was wounded, but not punished. He was crushed, but not in payment. Rather, He gave of Himself, and God forgave the debt we owed.
There’s a big difference there, between penal substitution and substitutionary atonement. In the former, God is just a creditor; in the latter, He’s a loving Father.
God is just a creditor; in the latter, He’s a loving Father
I still don’t get it.
It’s a pretty subtle distinction. Are you familiar with O Henry’s story The Gift of the Magi? It’s a really cool story… a financially-strapped husband and wife have only two possessions of value: he has an amazing pocket-watch that was handed down to him from his father and grandfather; she has awe-inspiring tresses of shiny brunette hair that cascade down to her knees.
At Christmas, both realize that they cannot possibly afford a present that would adequately express their love for the other and highlight their beloved’s most prized possession. So, what do they do? She sells her hair, and buys a chain that complements his pocket-watch perfectly. He sells his watch, and buys a set of hair-combs that she’s dreamt of constantly. Each sacrifices his prized possession for the good of the other.
In seeing the sacrifice that the other made, each realizes the depth of the love that they share. Even in the face of the sacrifice made, the loss is outweighed by the recognition of the depths of their mutual love.
That’s ‘substitutionary atonement’. That’s what it means to demonstrate love so intensely that nothing else matters in comparison.
‘Penal substitution’, on the other hand, is only a business transaction. There’s no exchange, there’s no notion of love… there’s only the idea that one possession (i.e., Christ’s life) was given up as a payment for a debt that the other (i.e., humanity) foolishly incurred.
Huge difference, don’t you think?
1 Peter 2:24
New International Version (NIV)
24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”
What does “our sins” in this verse mean?