Did Jesus Die for Everyone’s Sins?
This post is intended for genuine believers in Christ, or at least, those who are intimate with the Christian worldview. If you are the type of person who thinks it’s completely obvious that there’s no God, that the idea of sacrifice or vicarious atonement is repugnant, etc., there are plenty of Sundays when I’m happy to debate you–but I am aiming this particular post at fellow believers.
So here’s my question: If we’re saying that only the elect go to paradise, and are “saved” through their faith in Jesus (which itself is not because of their hard work), then what does it mean when we say to anyone who will listen, “Jesus died for our sins” ? Doesn’t it sound like you really should be saying, “Jesus died for my sins, and maybe He did for yours too… Let me ask you a few questions and see if I can give you an educated opinion.” ?
Another common Christian statement: Jesus conquered death. Well hang on a second: If a bunch of people are going to hell, and are dead because of their sin, it sounds like we’re using “conquered” in an odd way.
I have used this analogy before, but I’ll repeat it: Picture a parent who took her 3-year-old to the park. He’s having a great time. But it’s time to go, and the Mom says, “OK Jimmy we have to leave now.” But Jimmy will have none of it. He keeps going down the slide, chasing other toddlers around, etc.
So the Mom says, “All right Jimmy, you can stay here if you want. But I’m going home.” She packs up the sippy cup and snacks, and starts walking to the car. “Bye Jimmy, I’ll see you later. I hope you don’t get too cold when it’s nighttime.”
Now if someone who had absolutely no clue about what it’s like to be a parent saw that (typical) scene, he might be aghast. “What a horrible parent!! She’s either lying to her poor little kid and scaring him half to death, or she’s the most sadistic adult I’ve encountered in a month! That kid is going to have all kinds of abandonment and trust issues later on.”
So I’m wondering if this is how we will all realize typical atheist critiques of the God of the Bible will sound, when we are reunited with Him in heaven and can understand exactly why He did everything that He did. Maybe we will see that yes even Jesus used imagery of unquenchable fire, but that was to drive home the point that you really don’t want to choose hell. You want to choose to follow your parent. Yet at the same time, your loving parent really wasn’t going to let you “choose” something that catastrophic because you had no clue what you were doing.
Let me say one last time in closing: I understand full well that there are a lot of scriptural passages that contradict me here, but that’s why I bring up the analogy of the mom threatening to leave her kid at the park. That bluff only works if the kid believes it. And in that situation, we can understand that it’s not a case of “lying to manipulate your kid,” or at least, that you would have to be completely out-of-touch if that’s how you chose to describe the situation.
Final point: I am not saying that I understand the full situation. What I’m saying is, we necessarily are like the 3-year-old in the analogy. No matter what the Mom said to him, he wouldn’t possibly conceive of how bad it would be if she really took off and left him alone. So please don’t tell me, “Bob, if the situation is more nuanced like you’re claiming, then Jesus would have just told us that.” No, He used parables all the time, because He knew even His closest disciples couldn’t see things at His level. So He had to dumb it down for them, and in so doing, certain things were rendered imprecise. So the one thing of which I am confident is that when we finally understand God’s plan, we will really feel with utter certainty that it was just. Right now, I have to admit that the standard atheist critique–“Your God says, ‘You better love me or I burn you for eternity.'”–isn’t nonsense.
Good one, Bob. I think he did die for everyone’s sins. The “eternal torment” of hell can happen all in an instant: feeling totally bereft of God’s presence is an eternity even if it only lasts one second.
Hello Bob, I am a Christian and enjoy your blog, but have not posted before. I’m not sure if I have understood you correctly, I find your train of thought difficult to follow on this one. Are you saying that God’s threat of hell and eternal damnation is analogous to a mother threatening to leave her child at the playground- just a bluff to get them to choose the right thing? Therefore you are advocating universal salvation (this being related to the first part of your post about the statements “Jesus died for our sins” and “Jesus conquered death” only being meaningful if salvation is universal)?
Apologies if I have this wrong.
Kyle right, that’s basically what I’m suggesting could be the case.
Thanks Bob, as you say in your post, this is contrary to a lot of passages in scripture so I can’t agree with the logic or the analogy. And I’m not just talking about the odd cherry-picked verse here and there. God seems pretty serious to me about carrying out his judgment against sin. To pick just one example, in Noah’s flood, which is typological of the final judgement, only 6 out of the entire world are “saved”. It should be pointed out that equally, where there is genuine repentance, he is merciful- Jonah’s preaching and the 120,000 Ninevites repentance as an example.
I think it is a mistake to interpret the scriptures as saying Jesus died for every-bodies sins in the sense of “all and everyone”. So we get verses like John 1:29 “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”. It makes more sense to interpret the “world” here as meaning all types of different people whatever race, creed and kind. It must be remembered this was written at a time when Jews thought they were God’s people alone and Gentiles were excluded. (Jesus dying “for all” falls into the same category). This doesn’t mean the gospel shouldn’t be offered/ shared with all, with Jesus declared as the perfect remedy for sin- for all who would come to him. There is nothing inconsistent about this, because we (rightfully) don’t have the benefit of a God’s eye view to know who is/ isn’t the elect.
The scripture is very clear that the natural condition of everyone is with God’s wrath resting upon us (because we are a treasonous). The only question is whether it will remain upon us. That does not square well with your analogy of mother and child. (John 3:36 “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”)
Nice try, Ken B.
I like your answer, Kyle.
“If we’re saying that only the elect go to paradise, and are “saved” through their faith in Jesus (which itself is not because of their hard work), then what does it mean when we say to anyone who will listen, “Jesus died for our sins”?”
We say that Jesus sacrifice was sufficient for all. But there is more to that, because new covenant was established. On top of Jesus death, people must follow Jesus to be saved.
“Jesus conquered death. Well hang on a second: If a bunch of people are going to hell, and are dead because of their sin, it sounds like we’re using “conquered” in an odd way.”
Same thing, there is more to being saved than Jesus conquering death.
“Yet at the same time, your loving parent really wasn’t going to let you “choose” something that catastrophic because you had no clue what you were doing.”
We actually KNOW that God would allow to choose something that catastrophic. In the beginning Adam ate from the forbidden tree and because of that we all going to die!
“No, He used parables all the time, because He knew even His closest disciples couldn’t see things at His level. So He had to dumb it down for them, and in so doing, certain things were rendered imprecise.”
Can you substantiate your claim here?
To my knowledge Jesus spake in parables and thus fulfilled a prophecy:
Psalms 78: 2-3 I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us.
”Your God says, ‘You better love me or I burn you for eternity.’”
God’s holiness demands justice.
By Adam’s sin death entered into the world, not because of God.
“By Adam’s sin death entered into the world, not because of God.”
What happened to the fruits, vegetables or animals that adam ate?
In biblical context plants don’t die for only humans and animals have naphash(soul). Different words are used to describe “death” for humans/animals and plants. Also in the beginning humans and animals were vegetarian.
The permission to eat animals was given after the fall.
Having been explicitly warned off let me toss in a quote I heard from an Anglican priest when I was younger:
“Because I believe in the BibleI believe in Hell. Because I believe in God’s love and mercy I believe it is empty.”
Good analogy. I lean towards universalism, also. It’s difficult to expect a three-year old to ‘get’ mom’s bluff, so it probably isn’t that unreasonable that the three-year old goes around telling his buddies “I have to go, pronto! If I don’t, mom’s gonna leave me here!” while his friends snicker at him because this is a ridiculous idea. My dad used to tell us “If you kids do that again, I’m gonna rip your lips off and shove ’em down your throat!” Everyone knew he wasn’t being serious, and I don’t think anyone ever took him seriously.
For my part, I’m not the most logical person, and insight appeals to me more than trains of reason. George MacDonald seems one of the most insightful writers I’ve found into this question (yes, better than C.S. Lewis). He is a universalist along the lines of ‘everyone gets to heaven *eventually*.’ His last book *Lilith* is a pretty good illustration of this idea.
But on the other hand, as I’m also a three-year-old in your analogy, it’s hard to know if maybe, possibly, I’m wrong and mom isn’t actually bluffing. Question — does this (possibly) suggest something really terrible about my character, that I would consider believing ‘such a thing’ about God, as what would it suggest I thought of my dad if I’d believed his threat was literally true? Especially if I idealize God, for example, as a perfect model of behavior?
Jesus wrote checks to clear everyone’s respective debts, but not everyone will cash those checks. [But don’t worry; he didn’t just print money to pay off the debt.]
One of the tenets of Calvinism is “limited atonement,” i.e. Christ’s death was only for the elect. If you ultimately won’t accept salvation, then Christ didn’t die for you. However, I disagree. I believe Jesus died for everyone, and salvation is available to “whoever believes in him.”
Again, Jesus did conquer death. He’s not stuck in the grave. And, for Christians, as Paul says death has lost its victory, its sting. Though physical death is still a reality, spiritual death (the “second death” that is referred to in Revelation 4x, which is described as consignment to a fiery lake of burning sulfur) is something we do not have to face.
That being said, I don’t think that hell is an actual fiery lake of burning sulfur where people burn in unfathomable agony for all of eternity. I believe prophetic warnings in the Bible, OT and NT, are often symbolic of what is to come. That is not to say that hell will be delightful or what have you, but in my opinion it will be different than something thought up by Dante.
Luke 13:28 mentions gnashing of teeth. Our first thought naturally is unbearable pain. But Jesus is telling the people that this will result because they are refused entrance while the “last” get to go into the kingdom with the prophets of old. This smacks of resentment to me, not unlike the older brother in the story of the Prodigal Son. The “hell” in that story is a self-imposed prison. (Also, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus provides some pretty neat food for thought if you look past the fire. The rich man never accepts any responsibility, he wants relief but not escape, he expects Lazarus to provide him with comfort, etc.)
Does God actually wear a robe in some spiritual dimension? Or is this a vision Isaiah had that relates God’s sovereignty, authority, and power?
Perhaps more of my vision of hell is a softened version that I find more palatable. Perhaps i try to diminish it just to make myself feel better. At any rate, I believe that God genuinely desires everyone to be saved (but doesn’t override their decisions because he respects their choices), has gone to great lengths to provide them a way out of their otherwise impossible situation, and is wiser than any person could feign to be. I don’t understand all the details. I imagine there is some sort of proportionality to the punishment. I believe it will be fair, even if I struggle to see that with what I am aware of. But realistically, I believe hell is people not having to say they’re sorry and getting to be their own gods, and as such, never being fulfilled.
One of the tenets of Calvinism is “limited atonement,” i.e. Christ’s death was only for the elect. If you ultimately won’t accept salvation, then Christ didn’t die for you. However, I disagree. I believe Jesus died for everyone, and salvation is available to “whoever believes in him.”
At first, I thought “aren’t the results of both views identical?” Calvinists actually do believe salvation is available to everyone. However, we also don’t believe everyone desires Christ.
But, thinking further, I realized a problem. Christ’s death means the punishment for sin is satisfied. Because of this, we can say in Romans 8:1, “Therefore there is now no condemnation of those who are in Christ Jesus,” (Christian Counselors New Testament, Timeless Texts)
Notice though, there is no condemnation for those that are in Christ. The correct view is then, while Christ’s death was sufficient enough to satisfy the punishment of all sins of all people, it only actually takes away the punishment for those that re IN Christ. Therefore, to say Christ died for everyone is a bit misleading. It implies that Christ sastisfied the sin penalty for everyone, which would necessarily mean that there is now now hell for ANYONE. But, if we say that Christ died ONLY for those whome would believe. Essentially the elect in Romans 8:28-30,
“We know that God makes everything work together for the good of those who love Him, for those who are called according to His purpose, because those whom He foreknew, He also foreordained to be conformed to His Son’s image so that He might be the First-born among brothers. And those whom He foreordained He also called, and those whome He called He also declared righteous, and those whome He declared righteous He also glorified.” (CCNT)
Put simply, ALL who are foreknown are are foreordained. ALL who are foreordained are called. ALL who are called are declared righteous. And ALL who are declared righteous are glorified.
Additionally, we must agree that SOME are not foreknown, never foreordained, never called, never declared righteous, and never glorified. To say Christ died for these makes no sense. Was his death enough to have covered them, sure. Did it actually have any effect on them. Not a bit.
“So please don’t tell me, “Bob, if the situation is more nuanced like you’re claiming, then Jesus would have just told us that.” No, He used parables all the time, because He knew even His closest disciples couldn’t see things at His level. So He had to dumb it down for them, and in so doing, certain things were rendered imprecise. So the one thing of which I am confident is that when we finally understand God’s plan, we will really feel with utter certainty that it was just. Right now, I have to admit that the standard atheist critique–”Your God says, ‘You better love me or I burn you for eternity.’”–isn’t nonsense.”
If I started thinking Jesus “dumbed things down” for His own disciples, then I would be implicitly believing I am more enlightened than they were, because here I would be, saying that I can see better than they. If I really believed I could understand his parables, then I really believe his own disciples AT LEAST would have as well.
Maybe you’re confident about more than you think.
Well to be fair, you’ve had two thousand years of other people thinking about this and sharing their knowledge, including that of the disciples. The disciples were coming at this fresh and with no predecessors. So that argument might be not that the disciples had less innate ability to understand Christ than we do today, but that we today benefit from 2,000 years of study.
I would say, for instance, that I know more about physics than Isaac Newton. However, Isaac Newton almost assuredly is more intelligent than me and has more innate ability at understanding physics. If he lived today he would certainly gain more physics knowledge faster than I would. The same logic can then be applied to the apostles.
Bob, I’m confused about how “Jesus dying for my sins” ties into the mother-child analogy?
Is your argument that, those who believe are “saved” because they will behave as the child who believes mommy is leaving forever?
Admittedly, I’ve always had a hard time with the “died for your sins” statement.
Hi Bob,
Glad to see you share your faith, amen brother. Always temper your knowledge with the following.
1 Corinthians 8:1-3
1 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2 Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. 3 But whoever loves God is known by God.
The Bible is still a mystery to me but here is where I am at today.
Jesus conquered Satan at Calvary on the cross.
John 19:30
30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
Now it is all up to faith.
Ephesians 2: 8, 9
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
Sincerely,
Gamble
“The boom cannot continue indefinitely. There are two alternatives. Either the banks continue the credit expansion without restriction and thus cause constantly mounting price increases and an ever-growing orgy of speculation, which, as in all other cases of unlimited inflation, ends in a “crack-up boom” and in a collapse of the money and credit system. Or the banks stop before this point is reached, voluntarily renounce further credit expansion and thus bring about the crisis. The depression follows in both instances.”[1]
[1] Mises, L. v. (1940), Critique of Interventionism, p. 40.
I’m assuming you’re asking this question, Bob, because you are uncomfortable with seeing people burn forever in hell, so you want there to be some king of a way out for everyone. I don’t associate with any kind of religion and I don’t really believe in hell, but is it possible that immoral deeds (whatever you want to include in immorality) are so awful and noxious that burning forever is the proper punishment for them?
Hey Dr. Murphy, I have a question.
If the plan is to trick people into doing the right thing through a threat that will never actually be carried out, isn’t a post like this screwing up the plan?
To take your analogy, aren’t you being like a slightly older brother to the 3-year-old who knows it’s a bluff and telling your younger sibling so? Wouldn’t that mean that your just making God’s life harder? Should you be expecting some spiritual time-out for letting this cat out of the bag?
Should you be expecting some spiritual time-out for letting this cat out of the bag?
Would any decent earthly parent get mad at an older sibling telling the truth to his younger sibling?
I have observed this exact behaviour in re Santa Claus.
I found C.S. Lewis depiction in The Great Divorce to be an enlightening depiction of the possible relationship between heaven and hell. I haven’t encountered a more satisfying portrayal since reading this.
I think it comes down to Jesus died and conquered death for “whomever should believe.” I do not think it’s appropriate to tell any non Christian “Jesus dies for YOUR sins,” because we can’t possibly make that judgement. We can say, Jesus died for whomever will believe, and seek to witness to them along the lines of encouraging them to believe. If God has predestined them, He may very well use us then and there to bring the lost sheep into the fold. If God has not, our efforts at evangelism will be fruitless and us telling them Christ died specifically for them will in fact be a lie and we need to repent. That’s just my initial reaction to reading your post. Thanks Bob.
Give me a break, why is the notion of God in any way necessary to appreciate the concept of sacrifice?
What’s more, if Jesus really was the son of God and really did come straight back from the dead then that’s rather a cheat on the very idea of sacrifice. It’s like the Fed spending money then lending themselves more money to spend — not a sacrifice in the least. Only a mortal man who really has something to lose can be said to have sacrificed his life for a cause.
Hi Tel,
Jesus did not come right back, rather he ascended to Heaven. Jesus did sacrifice His earthly life.
On a side note, I have a lot of Radians friends who hate Christians because they assume we are all statist and the Bible is a statist mandate. I hope your comparison of Christ sacrifice to the FedFracFiat is not indicative that you also believe all Christians are statist?
Sure many statists have infiltrated the church but I aim to change this. The Bible is a document of liberty and choice.
Sincerely,
Gamble
Hey Tel, Bob’s asked not to have these debates on this particular day’s post. If you wouldn’t mind, bring it up on a another future post and people will be more than thrilled to discuss. Thanks!
🙂
Hello,
I’ve held back from commenting for some time, but that pesky feeling of “someone is wrong on the internet” was too much today.
Bob, since you indicated that this post was intended for Christians, I will refrain from initiating a lengthy debate here. If you need topics for a future Sunday post, though, I would like to request an extension of what you wrote here, or what I would classify as parenting via empty threats. The playground example is a case of lying, it is a case of manipulation, and it is a case of bad parenting. It may not result in severe psychological trauma to the child (though I think it can), but it does undermine the parent’s credibility and thus the child’s ability to trust in the one person he/she is supposed to be able to trust unconditionally. I believe that many cases of misbehavior in childhood and adolescence stem from this loss of trust.
As an atheist, I also assert that a person’s style of interacting with others will manifest in his/her depictions of God. For example, a parent who would lie to his/her child would also believe in a manipulative God (the God being a self-imagined entity). A parent who would not make empty threats would not conceive of such a God.
Anyway, we don’t have to continue this discussion but if you would like to bring it up in a future Sunday post I will formulate a more thorough response.
Hey Carrie,
FWIW I don’t ever say something false to my son now that he’s “mature” (he’s 7 right now). And strictly speaking I don’t think I even lied in the playground type of scenario when he was 3. I think I probably just said, “OK Clark, I’m leaaaaaving, see you later….” type thing, which wasn’t really a lie. So there’s probably not that big of a gap in our approach to parenting as this post might have suggested.
Another e.g. I don’t tell my kid to believe in Santa because I cant’ tell him that stuff with a straight face. When other parents say “oh but it’s a good way to get them to behave!” that gives me the willies.
Great, I can continue to hold you in high esteem.
😉
There are plenty of parents who do use manipulative strategies, though. This topic was in the forefront of my mind recently for three reasons:
1. Last weekend an Objectivist podcast I listen to discussed actual “overheard in the grocery store” examples where parents did make empty threats.
2. Last week one of my students asked my least favorite question, “Is this going to be on the test?” I said, “No, but you still have to learn it.” Most of the class was shocked that I hadn’t just lied and said the topic would be on the test in order to encourage the students to learn it. But to me it is strange to undermine my own credibility and encourage distrust and resentment.
3. This weekend I observed bloggers on LRC making fun of the media/government hurricane hype. Since the media/government makes empty threats, our “authorities” no longer have credibility and rightfully should not be believed.
So this is not how a parent should behave. Similarly, even if humans were unable to understand God’s larger plan, he (like a good parent or good teacher) should develop age-appropriate alternatives for teaching us without resorting to manipulation or coercion. For example, a parent could say, “I understand you like the park but you also like your dinner once we go home;” or, “If we cooperate and go home now that will make me proud.” A teacher could develop a fun/bonus assignment to cover material that is not on the test. God could describe a positive reward (heaven) without resorting to the threat of a negative (hell).
~
My opinions:
Jesus “paid the price of sin.” This price was not an arithmetic sum of everyone’s sins or the sum of the sins of people who would accept his sacrifice. In fact it wasn’t some real number. His sacrifice was infinite. If a person sins once more or one more person comes or doesn’t come unto him that doesn’t/wouldn’t have changed the price he paid.
Jesus conquered two separate deaths in different ways. The first death is spiritual death which is a separation from God because of sin. This death came first because Adam was separated from God and only died later. Jesus conquered spiritual death in two ways. First, he never sinned, conquering it on a personal level and qualifying himself to conquer it vicariously. Second, he “paid the price of sin” allowing us to conquer spiritual death if we come unto him.
The second death is physical death. He conquered that when he was resurrected. All people will receive this gift from God regardless of whether they come unto him and conquer the spiritual death. Not all resurrected people will be in the presence of God. Only those who conquered the spiritual death by coming unto Christ.
Further reading:
http://www.lds.org/topics/atonement-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng
http://www.lds.org/topics/death-spiritual?lang=eng
http://www.lds.org/topics/death-physical?lang=eng
http://www.lds.org/topics/hell?lang=eng
It’s not a fair analogy because little Jimmy hasn’t reached the age of accountability yet
I’ve got an interesting thought, Many are called but few respond, and then stay, right.. he who endureth to the end shall be saved…I have the strange malady of one of the “chosen” …Jesus said you did not choose me..but I chose you” And he said he did nothing separate from the Father’s will… that he had lost none that the Father had given him ~ Jhn 18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none. so my point of question is, what of this Judas of Iscariot.. I think the answer to your question about election is played out for us in this sad sagga…of…”Somebody had to do it” >> Its just got me thinking too, cause he was obviously invited…and had what would appear to be the same opportunities the rest of the twelve did..but he was taken over by the devil.. why…?? Divine appointment to fulfill scriptures, or just a natural result of someone who went self will run riot… And, he may have repented…just because he hung himself, I don’t believe that, or any other sin that he committed that day would be the one sin that is not covered by the shed blood of Christ…the problem seems to be the accepting part..not the lack of grace somewhere for some select doomed groop…I have seen too many people so far away from God get saved….including myself…and since God is no respecter of persons…their is no partiality with Him… Its not the same kind of an election that we have, for instance to a public office where that there is only a select few offices available….Gods vote has been cast inexplicably for each and every one of us… 2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.