Down the Wormhole as to Why Jesus Freely Died on the Cross

[Hvizsgyak]

Below is a conversation I had with my brother and I thought I put the same scenario you you all here. I have to admit I feel a little ashamed for asking this question (because I have been consuming everything God has put in front of me to learn, know and love Him since I was old enough to do so. One would think after all I've found in Our Lord, I would know this answer but I do not. I know what the Church teaches me, I know what others have said to me but it still doesn't answer my question. So below is the scenario I put forth to my brother and his responses are actually my guesses as to what he would say toward my first couple of questions (I did this because sometimes its days before one of us responses to what the other one said via email). So I'll throw you guys at the point where I started the scenario.

"Your answer you gave me about Jesus freely choosing to be
crucified for our sins still didn't answer my bigger question. You
just juxtaposed "Jesus had to die for our sins" for "Jesus freely
choose to die for our sins" but you didn't answer why did He die for
our sins. Now this is where the rapid firing questioning come in to
the picture. So we don't keep going back and forth on answering
what you say next, I will answer some of the questions for you (your
my brother, I can read your mind). Here we go:"

P: So I asked you why did Jesus die for our sins?
T: I'm guessing that you say because of all the sins mankind has been committing or
because of the sin of disobedience when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree
of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

P: So was God expecting us to not sin at anytime throughout history?
T: Yes

P: It seems as if there was some moral bet made in Heaven. Someone challenged God that His human couldn't go without committing sin. God lost the bet initially so He sent Jesus who did go through life sinless. Now I'm sure there really wasn't a bet but there has got to be some scenario as to why God created Adam and Eve and they multiplied throughout the Earth and humans were to remain sinless.

So the last P response is the big question I have about why the whole crucifying of Jesus took place. Now I'm going to unleash this scenario on you for you to pick it apart and hopefully give me what I'm looking for as an answer. God bless you and good luck.

 

[disciple Clint]

Below is a conversation I had with my brother and I thought I put the same scenario you you all here. I have to admit I feel a little ashamed for asking this question (because I have been consuming everything God has put in front of me to learn, know and love Him since I was old enough to do so. One would think after all I've found in Our Lord, I would know this answer but I do not. I know what the Church teaches me, I know what others have said to me but it still doesn't answer my question. So below is the scenario I put forth to my brother and his responses are actually my guesses as to what he would say toward my first couple of questions (I did this because sometimes its days before one of us responses to what the other one said via email). So I'll throw you guys at the point where I started the scenario.

"Your answer you gave me about Jesus freely choosing to be
crucified for our sins still didn't answer my bigger question. You
just juxtaposed "Jesus had to die for our sins" for "Jesus freely
choose to die for our sins" but you didn't answer why did He die for
our sins. Now this is where the rapid firing questioning come in to
the picture. So we don't keep going back and forth on answering
what you say next, I will answer some of the questions for you (your
my brother, I can read your mind). Here we go:"

P: So I asked you why did Jesus die for our sins?
T: I'm guessing that you say because of all the sins mankind has been committing or
because of the sin of disobedience when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree
of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

P: So was God expecting us to not sin at anytime throughout history?
T: Yes

P: It seems as if there was some moral bet made in Heaven. Someone challenged God that His human couldn't go without committing sin. God lost the bet initially so He sent Jesus who did go through life sinless. Now I'm sure there really wasn't a bet but there has got to be some scenario as to why God created Adam and Eve and they multiplied throughout the Earth and humans were to remain sinless.

So the last P response is the big question I have about why the whole crucifying of Jesus took place. Now I'm going to unleash this scenario on you for you to pick it apart and hopefully give me what I'm looking for as an answer. God bless you and good luck.

Looks like a basic misunderstanding of who God is and our relationship with God.
1. God knows all things, past, future, and immediate. He knew man would fall, He knew that Jesus would die on the cross to redeem mankind. He knew all this before He made man.
2. It is all about love and relationship. God wants to have a loving relationship with each of us and He also wants that relationship based on our free will to chose to have that relationship. Adam broke that relationship of love by deliberately disobeying God. God restored that relationship and demonstrated His love for us by Jesus suffering the death on the cross and then defeating death so that we might live with God forever. what Adam lost for man the second Adam (Jesus) regained. God is love.

 

[timothyu]

Simple. If someone had to reverse what was done to originally make death the final solution, then when the good news of the Kingdom, God ruling over mankind in a new life beyond that which was previously unavailable, someone worthy who followed God's will rather than their own unlike Adam and Eve, had to die like the rest of us, but be the first to be resurrected into the new life.

 

[HTacianas]

Below is a conversation I had with my brother and I thought I put the same scenario you you all here. I have to admit I feel a little ashamed for asking this question (because I have been consuming everything God has put in front of me to learn, know and love Him since I was old enough to do so. One would think after all I've found in Our Lord, I would know this answer but I do not. I know what the Church teaches me, I know what others have said to me but it still doesn't answer my question. So below is the scenario I put forth to my brother and his responses are actually my guesses as to what he would say toward my first couple of questions (I did this because sometimes its days before one of us responses to what the other one said via email). So I'll throw you guys at the point where I started the scenario.

"Your answer you gave me about Jesus freely choosing to be
crucified for our sins still didn't answer my bigger question. You
just juxtaposed "Jesus had to die for our sins" for "Jesus freely
choose to die for our sins" but you didn't answer why did He die for
our sins. Now this is where the rapid firing questioning come in to
the picture. So we don't keep going back and forth on answering
what you say next, I will answer some of the questions for you (your
my brother, I can read your mind). Here we go:"

P: So I asked you why did Jesus die for our sins?
T: I'm guessing that you say because of all the sins mankind has been committing or
because of the sin of disobedience when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree
of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

P: So was God expecting us to not sin at anytime throughout history?
T: Yes

P: It seems as if there was some moral bet made in Heaven. Someone challenged God that His human couldn't go without committing sin. God lost the bet initially so He sent Jesus who did go through life sinless. Now I'm sure there really wasn't a bet but there has got to be some scenario as to why God created Adam and Eve and they multiplied throughout the Earth and humans were to remain sinless.

So the last P response is the big question I have about why the whole crucifying of Jesus took place. Now I'm going to unleash this scenario on you for you to pick it apart and hopefully give me what I'm looking for as an answer. God bless you and good luck.

The "P" response you give as an example is closely related to the "ransom theory" of atonement. It's more or less the idea that Christ died as a ransom to Satan to release humankind from the bondage of sin. There might be something to it and I believe that is the logic behind the story of Barabbas being released to the crowd while Jesus was crucified. If you read of the "scapegoat" of Leviticus 16 you see the idea of one sacrifice to God, while the other, the scapegoat, is released to die in the wild. We have Jesus, the son of god, crucified, while Jesus Bar Abbas (bar abbas literally meaning "son of the father) is released. You can take that for what it's worth.

There are several other theories of atonement with the ransom theory being one of them. One that I have heard exists within the Orthodox Church and it is the idea that the crucifixion "re-ordered the universe". The closest analogy might be if someone causes some harm to you, in your mind things have become disordered - something isn't quite right, or things aren't quite in the right order. If they then make restitution for the harm they have done to you, in your mind things have returned to their original order. The re-ordering exists in your mind. But the creation exists in the mind of God, with all having been created, John 1:3, Col 1:16, and now consist, Col 1:17, through the Word, or Mind of God. In the Mind of God the creation is now back in its original order.

You can google "theories of atonement" and read about the different ideas about it. You'll run across things like the difference between propitiation and expiation. Those are often used in different translations of the bible to mean the same thing, but they are actually different.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

The "P" response you give as an example is closely related to the "ransom theory" of atonement. It's more or less the idea that Christ died as a ransom to Satan to release humankind from the bondage of sin. There might be something to it and I believe that is the logic behind the story of Barabbas being released to the crowd while Jesus was crucified. If you read of the "scapegoat" of Leviticus 16 you see the idea of one sacrifice to God, while the other, the scapegoat, is released to die in the wild. We have Jesus, the son of god, crucified, while Jesus Bar Abbas (bar abbas literally meaning "son of the father) is released. You can take that for what it's worth.

There are several other theories of atonement with the ransom theory being one of them. One that I have heard exists within the Orthodox Church and it is the idea that the crucifixion "re-ordered the universe". The closest analogy might be if someone causes some harm to you, in your mind things have become disordered - something isn't quite right, or things aren't quite in the right order. If they then make restitution for the harm they have done to you, in your mind things have returned to their original order. The re-ordering exists in your mind. But the creation exists in the mind of God, with all having been created, John 1:3, Col 1:16, and now consist, Col 1:17, through the Word, or Mind of God. In the Mind of God the creation is now back in its original order.

You can google "theories of atonement" and read about the different ideas about it. You'll run across things like the difference between propitiation and expiation. Those are often used in different translations of the bible to mean the same thing, but they are actually different.

I'll have to stew over your answer for a few days to get things to click in my head but your response gave me a wee bit more to the answer I'm looking for. It's funny what you stated in your last paragraph. I was going through some old threads here and found a sort of similar question ask by another poster back in 2018 and one of the responding posts was a link to RC Sproul and he used that exact language of propitiation and expiation and their differences. So I'm going to investigate more (now that I know what to look for - "theories of atonement".

I'll get back with this thread if I have more questions. Thank all of you for your responses.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Why because when Adam sinned, God chose blood as the atonement for sin. Now why did God choose blood, that question can not be answered.

 

[zelosravioli]

Everything here in this world is a prelude to the creation to come - the New Creation - God wants to have beings with freewill, but He also needs them to understand what the consequences, laws, and costs are of such an endeavor, and ultimately an eternal existence... Its more about the knowledge and understanding humans need to have of life, sin, death and of God Himself - than it is about a ransom, penalty or price, none of which God 'needs'. What God 'needs' is humans to understand how precious the gift of life is, in contrast to the sin and disobedience that leads to the 'natural' destruction of all things good.

'For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings'
Hosea 6:6
'But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners"
Matthew 9:13

 

[Tolworth John]

why did He die for
our sins.

Thee are two reasons.
We are sinners condemned already for our not believing in Jesus.
By dying and rising from the dead Jesus paid the penalty for us.

2nd, he did it because he loved us.

 

[Petros2015]

Thee are two reasons.
We are sinners condemned already for our not believing in Jesus.
By dying and rising from the dead Jesus paid the penalty for us.

2nd, he did it because he loved us.

The 2nd part, OK.
I'm not sure that first part makes sense.

If someone says he's the son of God, he can lead you to eternal life and you kill him and he stays dead, that's one thing.

"hmm, guess not. next?"

If someone says he's the son of God, he can lead you to eternal life and you kill him and 3 days later God resurrects him, that's another.

"uh oh..."

The murder exposes the depths of the sinful nature of mankind, which is a part of all of us regardless of who gave the orders and who drove the nails in. That's what he came to rescue us from. The crucifixion exposes it. The resurrection was final proof of authenticity - he is who he said he is, he came from where he said he came from and he can do what he said he can do. The extremes of both natures (man's and God's) are exposed and the difference between them.

Christ is the last peace offering the rebels get before their final overthrow. For those that lay down their arms and follow him out, all is forgiven.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Start the answer with this thought:

Therefore, since we have a great High Priest, who has pierced the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, we should hold to our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to have compassion on our infirmities, but rather one who was tempted in all things, just as we are, yet without sin. Therefore, let us go forth with confidence toward the throne of grace, so that we may obtain mercy, and find grace, in a helpful time.
Hebrews 4:14-16​

God became man so that mankind can become god; Christ went through everything that a human being does, birth, growing, eating and drinking, hunger, suffering, and death. He also experienced what human beings have yet to experience, resurrection, ascension, glorification. The crucifixion is in there among the life experiences of God incarnate.

 

[Matt5]

If I make cars and every car is defective, then whose fault is it?

Isn't it the fault of the maker?

Don't all the cars need to be recalled and destroyed?

Shouldn't I just start over?

What if I can prove that the cars aren't defective?

 

[bling]

Below is a conversation I had with my brother and I thought I put the same scenario you you all here. I have to admit I feel a little ashamed for asking this question (because I have been consuming everything God has put in front of me to learn, know and love Him since I was old enough to do so. One would think after all I've found in Our Lord, I would know this answer but I do not. I know what the Church teaches me, I know what others have said to me but it still doesn't answer my question. So below is the scenario I put forth to my brother and his responses are actually my guesses as to what he would say toward my first couple of questions (I did this because sometimes its days before one of us responses to what the other one said via email). So I'll throw you guys at the point where I started the scenario.

"Your answer you gave me about Jesus freely choosing to be
crucified for our sins still didn't answer my bigger question. You
just juxtaposed "Jesus had to die for our sins" for "Jesus freely
choose to die for our sins" but you didn't answer why did He die for
our sins. Now this is where the rapid firing questioning come in to
the picture. So we don't keep going back and forth on answering
what you say next, I will answer some of the questions for you (your
my brother, I can read your mind). Here we go:"

P: So I asked you why did Jesus die for our sins?
T: I'm guessing that you say because of all the sins mankind has been committing or
because of the sin of disobedience when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree
of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

P: So was God expecting us to not sin at anytime throughout history?
T: Yes

P: It seems as if there was some moral bet made in Heaven. Someone challenged God that His human couldn't go without committing sin. God lost the bet initially so He sent Jesus who did go through life sinless. Now I'm sure there really wasn't a bet but there has got to be some scenario as to why God created Adam and Eve and they multiplied throughout the Earth and humans were to remain sinless.

So the last P response is the big question I have about why the whole crucifying of Jesus took place. Now I'm going to unleash this scenario on you for you to pick it apart and hopefully give me what I'm looking for as an answer. God bless you and good luck.

Atonement is a huge topic. Jesus is not the atonement, but just the atonement Sacrifice, so what else is included, especially what is man’s part?

We talk about Christ paying God for our sins 100%, yet that means God had nothing left to forgive and if God forgave our sins 100% them Christ had nothing left to pay God, so which is it, since it cannot be both?

All the popular theories of atonement all having huge issues:

1. They make God out to be blood thirsty?

2. God is seen as being extremely wrathful toward His children?

3. All leave out man’s part in the atonement process, but do try to inject it someway?

4. They show universal atonement, which has to be illogically explained away to be for only those saved?

5. Jesus, Paul, John, Peter and the Hebrew writer explain Jesus going to the cross as literally being a ransom payment, yet the theories do a poor job explaining how these theories are ransom/kidnap scenario (the Ransom Theory of Atonement also does a poor job).

6. A rebellious disobedient child of a wonderful parent not only needs forgiveness, but fair/just Loving discipline conducted if at all possible, with the Parent (this is for best results), yet these theories only show forgiveness and not how atonement is a fair/just loving disciplining of the sinner.

7. It makes God out to be weak needing something like Christ going to the cross to forgive or accept the sinner and/or there is this “cosmic law” God has to obey.

8. They do not fit the definition for atonement in Lev.5 here minor sins (unintentional sins) are atoned for.

9. They do not explain the contrast between those forgiven before and after the cross Ro. 3:25.

10. They have no reason for why these explanations are left out of the Christ Crucified sermons given in the New Testament.

11. They do not fit, what the new convert can/should experience when coming to the realization they caused Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered (being crucified with Christ).

12. All will give illogical interpretations of verses and words in scripture, like (My God, My God why have you forsaken me) and the English word translating the Greek “for”.

13. They have or say: God forgives our sins 100% and Christ paid for our sins 100%, but that is contradicting the scriptural understanding of “paying” and “forgiving”, since if it truly “forgiven” there is nothing to be paid. It also cheapens sin.

14. The atonement sacrifice losses significance is lost by rolling it up with the death burial and resurrection.

15. We have Peter in Acts 2 giving a wonderful “Christ Crucified” sermon, yet there is no mention of Christ being our substitute or the cross “satisfying” God in some way and that is not presented in other sermons in scripture.

The cross is foolishness to the nonbeliever so it is not easy to explain:

To truly understand we need to go through every Old and New Testament verse concerning the atonement process and Christ’s crucifixion. I like to start with Lev. 5, but we might find the greatest understanding in Ro. 3:25, since there is Godly logic in what happened.

Atonement is one of those religious concepts which is best understood through experiencing it, then trying to explain it. Unfortunately, the new Christian is filled with ideas about atonement prior to experiencing it, so they are brain washed into trying to feel something that does not happen and quenching what should happen.

One of the advantages the Jews before Christ’s sacrifice had with atonement was personally going through the atonement process for very minor sins (unintentional sins). Lev. 5 explains why, what sinner goes through in the atonement process and might be a good place to start, since Lev. 4-5 is where atonement begins. There is also the advantage of the Lev. 5 atonement being for the individuals personal and actual sins.

We might be able to take the atonement process for very minor sins and extrapolate up to what it could be like for rebellious disobedience directly towards God requiring death for the sinner with no atonement possible under the Old Law.

It would be best to imagen yourself as a first century (BC) Jewish man who just accidently touched a dead unclean animal. If you are real poor you are going to have to work an extra job help someone else for money to buy a sack of flour. If you live in the city and have money you are going to have to go out and buy a lamb and some grain to feed it. You are not a shepherd, so you will have to drag or carry a balling, thirsty and hungry lamb to the altar. You get up early to hike into Jerusalem wait in line for hours to hand the flour or lamb to the priest and watch them go through their part of the atonement process which if you all did everything right will result in God forgiving you and you feeling forgiven.

There is more to what and why this happens which we can find in Lev. 5:

5…they must confess in what way they have sinned. (which we need to do in the atonement process)

6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed… Here the reason for atonement is given “as a penalty” (punishment but better translated disciplining).

If the sacrifice was made as a “payment” for a sin: these sins are all the same and God considers all people the same, so the sacrifice would need to be the same (a lamb for all or doves for all or flour for all) but they are not the same. The different values of the sacrifices, is an attempt to equalize the hardship/penalty (disciplining) on the sinners and does not suggest a payment being made to God especially a payment to forgive a sin. God does not need a bag of flour to forgive sins.

The intention of the sinner going through all this, would be, all the benefits that come from being Lovingly disciplined.

We really need to go through every verse relating to atonement and sacrifice to gleam a true understanding.


Try just this small part of atonement:

There is this unbelievable huge “ransom payment” being made: Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews all describe it as an actual ransom scenario and not just “like a ransom scenario”. And we can all agree on: the payment being Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder, the Payer being God/Christ, the child being set free (sinners going to God), but have a problem with: “Who is the kidnapper”? If there is no kidnapper than the ransom scenario does not fit, so who is the kidnapper?

Some people try to make God the receiver of the payment, which calls God the kidnapper of His own children which is crazy.

Some people say satan is the kidnapper (this is what the Ransom Theory of atonement has), but that would mean God is paying satan when God has the power to safely take anything from satan and it would be wrong for God to pay satan.

Some say it is an intangible like death, evil, sin, or nothing, but you would not pay a huge payment to an intangible?

Think about this

When we go to the nonbeliever, we are not trying to convince them of an idea, a book, a church, a doctrine or theology, but to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If the nonbeliever accepts (Jesus Christ) there is a child released to go to the Father, but if the nonbeliever refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified a child is kept out of the Kingdom. Does this all sounds very much like a kidnapping scenario?

Is Jesus Christ and Him crucified is the huge ransom payment?

Yes, Christ is the ransom payment for all, but the kidnapper can accept or reject the payment. If the kidnapper rejects this unbelievable huge payment, the payers of the ransom are going to be upset with that kidnapper.

There is a lot more to say about this, but this is an introduction.

 

[timothyu]

Isn't it the fault of the maker?

Not if the cars are self regulating, and perhaps AI like us.

 

[Clare73]

Why because when Adam sinned,
God chose blood as the atonement for sin.
Now why did God choose blood, that question can not be answered.​

The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).

Death is the punishment/penalty for sin (Genesis 2:17).

The shedding of blood is death, for the life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11).

Jesus' sacrificial death (shed blood) was the penalty for our sin, which he bore (1 Peter 2:24;
Hebrews 9:28) as our substitute.

That is penal substitutionary atonement.

 

[Clare73]

Atonement is a huge topic. Jesus is not the atonement, but just the atonement Sacrifice,

The atonement sacrifice is the atonement.

 

[bling]

The atonement sacrifice is the atonement.

Read Lev. 5.

 

[disciple Clint]

Atonement is a huge topic. Jesus is not the atonement, but just the atonement Sacrifice, so what else is included, especially what is man’s part?

We talk about Christ paying God for our sins 100%, yet that means God had nothing left to forgive and if God forgave our sins 100% them Christ had nothing left to pay God, so which is it, since it cannot be both?

All the popular theories of atonement all having huge issues:

1. They make God out to be blood thirsty?

2. God is seen as being extremely wrathful toward His children?

3. All leave out man’s part in the atonement process, but do try to inject it someway?

4. They show universal atonement, which has to be illogically explained away to be for only those saved?

5. Jesus, Paul, John, Peter and the Hebrew writer explain Jesus going to the cross as literally being a ransom payment, yet the theories do a poor job explaining how these theories are ransom/kidnap scenario (the Ransom Theory of Atonement also does a poor job).

6. A rebellious disobedient child of a wonderful parent not only needs forgiveness, but fair/just Loving discipline conducted if at all possible, with the Parent (this is for best results), yet these theories only show forgiveness and not how atonement is a fair/just loving disciplining of the sinner.

7. It makes God out to be weak needing something like Christ going to the cross to forgive or accept the sinner and/or there is this “cosmic law” God has to obey.

8. They do not fit the definition for atonement in Lev.5 here minor sins (unintentional sins) are atoned for.

9. They do not explain the contrast between those forgiven before and after the cross Ro. 3:25.

10. They have no reason for why these explanations are left out of the Christ Crucified sermons given in the New Testament.

11. They do not fit, what the new convert can/should experience when coming to the realization they caused Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered (being crucified with Christ).

12. All will give illogical interpretations of verses and words in scripture, like (My God, My God why have you forsaken me) and the English word translating the Greek “for”.

13. They have or say: God forgives our sins 100% and Christ paid for our sins 100%, but that is contradicting the scriptural understanding of “paying” and “forgiving”, since if it truly “forgiven” there is nothing to be paid. It also cheapens sin.

14. The atonement sacrifice losses significance is lost by rolling it up with the death burial and resurrection.

15. We have Peter in Acts 2 giving a wonderful “Christ Crucified” sermon, yet there is no mention of Christ being our substitute or the cross “satisfying” God in some way and that is not presented in other sermons in scripture.

The cross is foolishness to the nonbeliever so it is not easy to explain:

To truly understand we need to go through every Old and New Testament verse concerning the atonement process and Christ’s crucifixion. I like to start with Lev. 5, but we might find the greatest understanding in Ro. 3:25, since there is Godly logic in what happened.

Atonement is one of those religious concepts which is best understood through experiencing it, then trying to explain it. Unfortunately, the new Christian is filled with ideas about atonement prior to experiencing it, so they are brain washed into trying to feel something that does not happen and quenching what should happen.

One of the advantages the Jews before Christ’s sacrifice had with atonement was personally going through the atonement process for very minor sins (unintentional sins). Lev. 5 explains why, what sinner goes through in the atonement process and might be a good place to start, since Lev. 4-5 is where atonement begins. There is also the advantage of the Lev. 5 atonement being for the individuals personal and actual sins.

We might be able to take the atonement process for very minor sins and extrapolate up to what it could be like for rebellious disobedience directly towards God requiring death for the sinner with no atonement possible under the Old Law.

It would be best to imagen yourself as a first century (BC) Jewish man who just accidently touched a dead unclean animal. If you are real poor you are going to have to work an extra job help someone else for money to buy a sack of flour. If you live in the city and have money you are going to have to go out and buy a lamb and some grain to feed it. You are not a shepherd, so you will have to drag or carry a balling, thirsty and hungry lamb to the altar. You get up early to hike into Jerusalem wait in line for hours to hand the flour or lamb to the priest and watch them go through their part of the atonement process which if you all did everything right will result in God forgiving you and you feeling forgiven.

There is more to what and why this happens which we can find in Lev. 5:

5…they must confess in what way they have sinned. (which we need to do in the atonement process)

6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed… Here the reason for atonement is given “as a penalty” (punishment but better translated disciplining).

If the sacrifice was made as a “payment” for a sin: these sins are all the same and God considers all people the same, so the sacrifice would need to be the same (a lamb for all or doves for all or flour for all) but they are not the same. The different values of the sacrifices, is an attempt to equalize the hardship/penalty (disciplining) on the sinners and does not suggest a payment being made to God especially a payment to forgive a sin. God does not need a bag of flour to forgive sins.

The intention of the sinner going through all this, would be, all the benefits that come from being Lovingly disciplined.

We really need to go through every verse relating to atonement and sacrifice to gleam a true understanding.


Try just this small part of atonement:

There is this unbelievable huge “ransom payment” being made: Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews all describe it as an actual ransom scenario and not just “like a ransom scenario”. And we can all agree on: the payment being Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder, the Payer being God/Christ, the child being set free (sinners going to God), but have a problem with: “Who is the kidnapper”? If there is no kidnapper than the ransom scenario does not fit, so who is the kidnapper?

Some people try to make God the receiver of the payment, which calls God the kidnapper of His own children which is crazy.

Some people say satan is the kidnapper (this is what the Ransom Theory of atonement has), but that would mean God is paying satan when God has the power to safely take anything from satan and it would be wrong for God to pay satan.

Some say it is an intangible like death, evil, sin, or nothing, but you would not pay a huge payment to an intangible?

Think about this

When we go to the nonbeliever, we are not trying to convince them of an idea, a book, a church, a doctrine or theology, but to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If the nonbeliever accepts (Jesus Christ) there is a child released to go to the Father, but if the nonbeliever refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified a child is kept out of the Kingdom. Does this all sounds very much like a kidnapping scenario?

Is Jesus Christ and Him crucified is the huge ransom payment?

Yes, Christ is the ransom payment for all, but the kidnapper can accept or reject the payment. If the kidnapper rejects this unbelievable huge payment, the payers of the ransom are going to be upset with that kidnapper.

There is a lot more to say about this, but this is an introduction.

I am not trying to be critical of your well thought out post but I think it is interesting from a theological scholastic standpoint but we should guard against over complicating salvation, all theories of atonement are applicable and each has merit. Salvation is simple, we are sinners, the wages of sin is death, Adam gave Satan his kingdom which we now live in, salvation from death and inheritance of the Kingdom of God is available to us if we accept Jesus and His death on the cross as our salvation by having faith in the Gospel. Jesus paid in full for the sins that separate us from the relationship with God that we were intended to have, when we accept Jesus we become brothers of Jesus thus Sons of God and we inherit the Kingdom of God.

 

[Clare73]

Read Lev. 5.

That would be Leviticus 4, Numbers 15:30, Leviticus 5:1-13, and Leviticus 6:24-30.

The sacrifices reveal the work of Christ:
substitutionary atonement for sin,
satisfying the requirements of God's justice (i.e., death),
appeasing God's wrath (Romans 3:25-26, Romans 5:9),
purchasing eternal life for all those who believe in and place their trust on Christ and his atoning/saving work (John 3:14-15).

 

[bling]

I am not trying to be critical of your well thought out post but I think it is interesting from a theological scholastic standpoint but we should guard against over complicating salvation, all theories of atonement are applicable and each has merit. Salvation is simple, we are sinners, the wages of sin is death, Adam gave Satan his kingdom which we now live in, salvation from death and inheritance of the Kingdom of God is available to us if we accept Jesus and His death on the cross as our salvation by having faith in the Gospel. Jesus paid in full for the sins that separate us from the relationship with God that we were intended to have, when we accept Jesus we become brothers of Jesus thus Sons of God and we inherit the Kingdom of God.

First off, I agree with the idea “salvation is simple”.

I have also stated: “Atonement is better understood through experiencing it than it is trying to explain it with words.”

Quit blaming “Adam”. Adam and Eve when through the Garden experience showing us that a Garden type situation is a lousy (and impossible) place for even willing humans to fulfill their earthly objective. This terrible world situation is actually the very best situation to help willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective. Adam and Eve learned this first hand and we all learn it through their experience.

You say: “Jesus paid in full for the sins that separate us from the relationship”, so who did Jesus pay?

God forgave our sins 100%, so there is nothing to be paid to God.

Think about this


When we go to the nonbeliever, we are not trying to convince them of an idea, a book, a church, a doctrine or theology, but to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If the nonbeliever accepts (Jesus Christ) there is a child released to go to the Father, but if the nonbeliever refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified a child is kept out of the Kingdom. Does this all sounds very much like a kidnapping scenario?


Is Jesus Christ and Him crucified is the huge ransom payment?


Yes, Christ is the ransom payment for all, but the kidnapper can accept or reject the payment. If the kidnapper rejects this unbelievable huge payment, the payers of the ransom are going to be upset with that kidnapper.

 

[bling]

That would be Leviticus 4, Numbers 15:30, Leviticus 5:1-13, and Leviticus 6:24-30.

The sacrifices reveal the work of Christ:
substitutionary atonement for sin,
satisfying the requirements of God's justice (i.e., death),
appeasing God's wrath (Romans 3:25-26, Romans 5:9),
purchasing eternal life for all those who believe in and place their trust on Christ and his atoning/saving work (John 3:14-15).

The bag of flour is not a substitute for the sinner.

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.