Was Jesus "guilty" of our sins on the cross?

[Verita]

I’ve seen this expressed in many ways from many people but it always comes down to the same thing. It seems there are alot of people who believe that on the cross Jesus “took on our sins” and literally became “guilty” of them in order to pay the price for them. This belief seems particularly common among protestants (As a protestant this is what was taught to me.) and it would seem to tie in directly to the belief of some protestants that Jesus paid for all sins (past present and future) right there on the cross.

But my own thoughts on the subject are that Jesus couldn’t have been guilty of our sins. After all, he is God. How can God be guilty of sin? He can’t. And Jesus’ human and divine natures cannot be separated. So he can’t be guilty of sin as a man and not guilty as God. His natures are in perfect union. And furthermore, Jesus was a pure, perfect sacrifice. He was the pascal lamb, unblemished. At least, since becoming a Catholic that is what I have been taught. He wouldn’t have been the perfect sacrifice that God required if he was guilty of our sins.

However, I’ve seen both Catholics and protestants talk about Jesus “taking on our sins”. I don’t see how this is possible. Am I right or wrong?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi,

Im protestant and I would say guilty is not the right word. Yes he did take on our sins for the whole world so we could have a way to get to heaven. But, He willingly took on our sins, not out of guilt or to be guilty of, but because He loved us so much He wanted us to be able to be with Him in heaven for eternity.

I dont know if I answered your question well.

Maybe bear is a better word. Or in the bible he says, He took on the sins of the world. I think the word guilt is getting in your way.

Hope that helps:thumbsup:

 

[Chesster]

When Catholics refer to Jesus as “taking on our sins” it does not meat that our sins were transferred to Him but rather Jesus bears the burden of expiating our sins.

 

[Verita]

Hi,

Im protestant and I would say guilty is not the right word. Yes he did take on our sins for the whole world so we could have a way to get to heaven. But, He willingly took on our sins, not out of guilt or to be guilty of, but because He loved us so much He wanted us to be able to be with Him in heaven for eternity.

I dont know if I answered your question well.

Maybe bear is a better word. Or in the bible he says, He took on the sins of the world. I think the word guilt is getting in your way.

Hope that helps:thumbsup:

Well, I have heard many protestants use the word “guilt”. That in taking on our sins Jesus “became guilty” of them and this is why the Father abandoned Jesus on the cross. (Hence his exclamation "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.)

In fact, I remember once while on a summer mission trip with an organization that encompasses many denominations one of the main speakers describing explicitly how Jesus, in bearing the weight of all our sin (essentially the same thing as being “guilty” of the sin), became so repugnant to the Father that he literally had to turn his back on Jesus and forsake him.

I’m not claiming that all protestants believe this. But some do. What I really want though it to clarify Catholic teaching on the matter.

 

[Verita]

When Catholics refer to Jesus as “taking on our sins” it does not meat that our sins were transferred to Him but rather Jesus bears the burden of expiating our sins.

I’m not sure if that is quite right either. Honestly, I think it’s better to steer clear any phrase that describes Jesus taking on our sins. The logical conclusions that could be drawn from it are dangerous.

 

[mchale]

Well, I have heard many protestants use the word “guilt”. That in taking on our sins Jesus “became guilty” of them and this is why the Father abandoned Jesus on the cross. (Hence his exclamation "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.)

Really? And I thought the Protestants were suppose to pay more attention to the Bible than us Catholics? Those words were meant as a reference to the 22nd Psalm. Essentially, it is saying the exact opposite of what it appears to mean.

In fact, I remember once while on a summer mission trip with an organization that encompasses many denominations one of the main speakers describing explicitly how Jesus, in bearing the weight of all our sin (essentially the same thing as being “guilty” of the sin), became so repugnant to the Father that he literally had to turn his back on Jesus and forsake him.

I’m not claiming that all protestants believe this. But some do. What I really want though it to clarify Catholic teaching on the matter.

My understanding is this; that Jesus bore the penalty for our sin so that we might be spared having to repay that which can never be repayed, but in no sense could Jesus’s act of Love be considered as him becoming guilty of our sins.

–
Bill

 

[Verita]

Really? And I thought the Protestants were suppose to pay more attention to the Bible than us Catholics? Those words were meant as a reference to the 22nd Psalm. Essentially, it is saying the exact opposite of what it appears to mean.

Well, sometimes they do interpret things literally.

My understanding is this; that Jesus bore the penalty for our sin so that we might be spared having to repay that which can never be repayed, but in no sense could Jesus’s act of Love be considered as him becoming guilty of our sins.

–
Bill

I’m still not sure that phrases such as “taking on our sins” and “bearing the penalty for our sins” are accurate. I mean, was he bearing the penalty for all of our sins right there on the cross? From some things I have read (most specifically in Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper, but also in C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity) I have come to believe otherwise. But what I really want to know, and what I should have stated in the first post, is what the Church’s official teaching on the matter is.

My understanding is that Jesus was functioning as the perfect sacrifice to offer atonement for our sins. Yet, the unblemished sacrificial lamb is not in any way repsonsible for paying the price for the sins it atones for. We are responsible for offering the sacrificial lamb for our sins. I don’t know. Perhaps my understanding is flawed. That is what I would like to know.

 

[Chesster]

The penalty for our sins is death. We can say that Jesus bore the penalty of sin because He died. It doesn’t mean that Jesus was guilty or had ours sins transferred to Him, it means that He died and that death was His burden for expiating our sins.

 

[Scottgun]

Jesus Christ is the perfect sin offering. The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Our punishment for our sins is eternal damnation. Since Our Lord is in Heaven and not the other place, he did not stand in as substitute for our punishment.

 

[Ghosty]

As in all things, it’s often best to consult the Fathers of the Church. In this case, the traditional Catholic understanding is best expounded by St. Athanasius of Alexandria writing in the 4th Century. Read “On the Incarnation”, especially Chapters 2 and 3. This paragraph in particular is helpful as it relates directly to the matter of death and sin:

As we have already noted, it was unthinkable that God, the Father of Truth, should go back upon His word regarding death in order to ensure our continued existence. He could not falsify Himself; what, then, was God to do?

…

The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required. Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection. For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all. You know how it is when some great king enters a large city and dwells in one of its houses; because of his dwelling in that single house, the whole city is honored, and enemies and robbers cease to molest it. Even so is it with the King of all; He has come into our country and dwelt in one body amidst the many, and in consequence the designs of the enemy against mankind have been foiled and the corruption of death, which formerly held them in its power, has simply ceased to be. For the human race would have perished utterly had not the Lord and Savior of all, the Son of God, come among us to put an end to death.

Christ is a sin offering, and also bears the consequence of our sins: death. In doing so humanity performs a most noble and Divine act, and the punishment of death is exhausted by the Cross in the infinity of the Life of Christ; since His Life is infinite, it “swallows” the death-punishment of all who are united to Him. There is no sense in which Christ became abhorent to God, as if it were even possible for God to forsake God.

Peace and God bless!

 

[sailorvet]

I’m not sure if that is quite right either. Honestly, I think it’s better to steer clear any phrase that describes Jesus taking on our sins. The logical conclusions that could be drawn from it are dangerous.

My take on this is based on the fact that John the Baptist referred to Jesus as the Lamb of God.
The bible in old and new testaments are replete with animals being used to bear away sin. That included cattle, sheep, goats, and doves.
There is even an instance of human sacrifice: Abraham and Isaac.
In each case the sacrifical victim took on the sins of others to bear them away and release the sacrificer from sin.
Jesus is not guiltey of any sin and there is no place in the bible that charges sin to him. He only bears sin away and thereby lifts up up.

 

[PinoyCatholic]

From what I understand of Catholic teaching, God and Man entered into a Covenant whereby if either of them were guilty of breaking it, the guilty party would die. This was serious business because God the Eternal cannot die and be corrupted (or maybe should not because that would mean the destruction of all that is), and in His binding Himself to it, in His love basically trusted Mankind to keep his end of the bargain.

Man, being the unfaithful being that he is, broke the Covenant and ensured the penalty of death for himself, thereby damning all of humankind to death and eternal torment.

God though, being always faithful and loving Mankind so much, chose to accept the penalty Himself. This is why He had to be Incarnated for His death to occur, and that the penalty for our sins be paid. God could then die and cancel out our eternal debt, because only a payment of eternal worth can cancel out an eternal debt.

This does not mean though that we are saved for all time. It just means that our past debt has been paid under the old Covenant.