What are a few reasons why Christ died upon the cross?
I will start.
#1. Christ died upon the cross to forgive us our sins (Hebrews 9:22).
This verse is talking about cleansing, everything used in the sacrifice for sins was cleansed with blood, but the blood itself did not cause sins to be forgiven, Deity only can forgive sins. Under the Old Law animal blood and water was used to cleanse but that was only outwardly, while today we take Christ’s blood repressed by wine and drink it cleansing our hearts (making our hearts holy).
Again, God forgives sins and did not need Christ to go to the cross to forgive our sins (God is powerful and Loving enough to forgive us without Christ going to the cross and Christ and God forgave sins prior to the cross).
#2. Christ died upon the cross so that He might sanctify us with the washing of the water of the Word (Scripture) so that He might present to Himself a church that is holy and without blemish or spot (Ephesians 5:25-27). For Christ died for us to redeem us from all iniquity (Titus 2:14).
Eph. 5:25-27 is not just talking about Christ’s death on the cross, but Jesus’ whole life given for the Church. The washing of the “word” is not the actions of the cross, but the whole Gospel.
Titus 2:14 is talking about freeing a child (person) from the “kidnapper” of that person to truly be free, which the accepted ransom payment provides. If we are not set free, we cannot keep from sinning.
#3. Christ died upon the cross because it would nail to the cross those ordinances that were against us in the Old Law (Colossians 2:14-17).
OK, Those old rules were nailed to the cross.
Atonement is a huge topic; I could write a book on:
Jesus makes a very interesting description of his actions: “…to give his life as a ransom for many”. Paul, John, Peter and the writer of Hebrews use this same description, but all like Jesus say it is a literal ransom and not just “like” a ransom, so how is it a literal ransom and really a kidnapping scenario?
We have no problem seeing the ransom amount being sacrificially huge like we find in kidnappings, we have no problem seeing a child being set free to enter the kingdom and be with their Father, we have no problem see deity making the huge sacrifice and Christ being the huge payment.
The problem comes with: “Who is the kidnapper”: an undeserving criminal?
Can God be the kidnapper (an undeserving criminal)?
Satan is an undeserving criminal, but God can easily and safely take anything away from satan without paying him a ransom, so it would actually be wrong for God to pay satan anything. What “need” would God have for paying satan? (We can go through what supporters of the “Ransom theory of atonement” say.)
Some say, the kidnapper is some intangible like the none existing death angel, death, sin, or evil, but what can they do with this payment and/or what is the need?
Some say, there is no kidnapper (it is an analogy which breaks down at the kidnapper), but without a kidnapper it is not a ransom payment and no one or thing holding the child back from being free, so how is it a kidnapping?
There is also the general problem of having a ransom paid for all people including those who do not go to heaven and where and how is the sinner’s part in all this?
Thinking about this solution:
When we go up to the nonbeliever are we trying to get the nonbeliever to accept: a book, a theology, an idea, a church or “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified”?
If the nonbeliever accepts Jesus Christ and Him crucified than a child is set free to enter the kingdom, but if the nonbeliever rejects Jesus Christ and Him Crucified then a child is kept out of the Kingdom, so does that sound like what a kidnapper does?
Is the nonbelieving sinner an undeserving criminal?
In what way is “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” of great value to the nonbelieving?
How upset would God be with the kidnapper if the kidnapper rejected His payment offer?
Just as there are many children needing to be set free could there also be many kidnappers?
The kidnapping scenario is just one small part of the atonement explanation. Here is another piece of the puzzle:
I have not solved the problem of where to begin the explanation, but it might be best to go back to the Jewish understanding of atonement learned from actually individually personally going through the atonement process. Christians lack this experience and instead have developed preconceived ideas of atonement from poor theories.
First off: If you are forgiven 100% then there is nothing to pay and if Christ paid 100% there is nothing to forgive.
Penal Substitution is not fair/just where you have the innocent being punished (even if the innocent is willing to be punished) so the guilty can go free. The “payment” would not be just any innocent life, but the life of the person who sinned.
The “Satisfaction Theory of Atonement” put the problem of forgiveness in God’s lap needing Christ to be cruelly, tortured, humiliated and murdered (sounding very blood thirsty) in order to be personally satisfied to forgive.
God would have no problem forgiving, God is totally fair and just, but any rebellious disobedient child needs more then just forgiveness, since if at all possible, a wonderful parent would see to the fair/just Loving discipline of His children for all the benefits discipline provides. Atonement thus is a disciplining process we go through with God and Christ as we are crucified “with Christ”.
The Jews under the Law would have a good understanding of atonement by experiencing atonement for very minor sins which took little disciplining:
Lev.4 starts atonement off giving details of what the priest must do, which you should read and understand, but Lev.5 gets into more detail about the individual, so please read Lev. 5 with much thought. I find people with pet theories of atonement skip Lev. 5 all together and might go to Lev. 16, but the day of atonement has some lite symbolic references to Christ, Lev 5 is a closer representation. I will discuss Lev. 16 if you want to take the time, but it takes some explaining of what and why it was needed by itself. Please read Lev. 5 before going further.
Atonement is much more than the sacrifice itself; it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process.
We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.
Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).
The atonement process includes confessing, securing a good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.
Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.
Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.
Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).
Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the lamb’s shepherd, so for hours waiting in line to get to the priest he fighting this lamb and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour, so he has an equal hardship also. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship in the process.
We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.
Please think up some questions to ask me.
