The Purpose of the Crucifixion and why it had to be.

[heymikey80]

Personally, I find this a very compelling question, though it's heavily studied and there are serious and bellicose advocates on all sides.

I apologize if this turns out to attract some sharp or shallow responses attacking different sides of the argument. I'm not really interested in attacks. I'm more interested in the models that are proposed, and how they are progressing. I find it sad that some models only progress by attacking other sides, too. I'll express my disdain when that kind of argument appears. I hope you'll do the same -- nicely -- even when you see something of the same growing in my posts.

There are a few ways of dealing with this issue historically, but I think there are also some developments today that move things along. So I'll try to describe some of the theories and their progressions.

Satisfaction Theory -- the idea that the Crucifixion is required to make restitution for sin. Sin is seen as a massive offense against an infinite God.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development from Satisfaction Theory that builds on substitutionary imputation to satisfy the sentence for sin on someone else's account.

Governmental Theory essentially develops from this, but moves far afield from Satisfaction theory in that Christ's Crucifixion is a demonstration to people of God's opposition and pending destruction of sin, but not a particular atonement of individuals. It's a setting-up of a group, a communion (that is, Christ's Church), under which people who are accepted into this group are rescued through the Crucifixion.

Ransom Theory -- the idea that the Crucifixion is required to release people from their captivity to death.

Christus Victor Theory seems to develop ransom theory in another line I think away from the concept of "ransom", pointing out that the death of Christ as a criminal would inevitably lead Him into the stronghold of humanity's captivity in sin and death, only to burst its chains through His power.

There're more, and obviously I'm not going to detail them all nor lay claim to advocating them all: I'm merely setting out those I've seen as far as I understand them, which is not in depth -- that's for advocates to describe.

 

[Harry3142]

The problem with theories is that they tend to compartmentalize. They want everything to fit on a particular shelf where they can view it objectively. This simply will not work wuth the passion of Christ; the entire incident was too complex.

What we have with Christ's passion and death is a happening within a happening. The chief priests, I suspect under the direct orders of Pilate himself, charged Jesus with a crime against their laws, only to bring him before Pilate for sentencing because of the Jus Gladii law he had enacted a few years earlier. This law stated that only the roman overseers had the authority to pass the sentence of death on any person in Judea, irregardless of the crime. The official version is that Pilate 'caved' to their demands and ordered Jesus' death despite misgivings.

But Pilate was no wimp. He had been sent to Judea in the first place due to his military background and the campaigns he had shown his bravery in along their borders with presentday Germany. He had attracted the attention of Sejanus, Tiberius' right-hand man in Rome at that time (Tiberius himself lived almost exclusively at his villa on the Isle of Capri), who saw him as the perfect man to be prefect of Judea, an area long known for its insurrections and riots. Sejanus is also known to have been a virulent antisemite, so his pick for prefect would have been one who believed in violence and cruelty toward them.

But Sejanus became too ambitious. He plotted to take the throne of emperor for himself. Tiberius found out what he was planning, and in one of his few trips to Rome exposed his treachery, accusing him of treason while they were both standing in the senate itself.

Sejanus was promptly removed from there and strangled in the traditional manner used for traitors. But not only was he strangled, but also his wife, his siblings, his two small children (it is recorded that they stood them back-to-back and strangled both of them at the same time), and even his slaves.

Afterwards Tiberius was even more paranoid than he had been prior to Sejanus' plot. Anything that could possibly lead to an insurrection was to be crushed, and anyone who attracted a large following of people was to be eliminated. And Judea was a hotbed for both of these.

And in the middle of this societal disaster here comes Jesus, preaching and healing and attracting large groups of people to him. The very thing that Tiberius insisted could not be tolerated was happening in, of all places, Judea, the country that Sejanus' comrade was in charge of. Pilate knew that he had to kill Jesus almost from the very moment when Jesus started gaining a reputation and attracting more-and-more people to him.In other words, Jesus'death was already in the works three years before it took place.

But Pilate had a second problem. If he simply grabbed Jesus and killed him, like he had so many others, the people might riot; Pilate could even end up with an insurrection on his hands. And even though Tiberius insisted that any and all possible threats to his reign be crushed mercilessly, he also insisted that the territories be kept docile so that the taxes would continue to flow into Rome's coffers. If pilate caused problems he would be in deep trouble with Tiberius, especially with Pilate's having been aided in his ambition by the very man who had tried to take Tiberius' throne.

So how does he kill a man, without it's looking as if he's the one ordering the man's death? He does it by ordering the priests in Jerusalem, most of whom were roman apointees under his direct control, to find something to charge Jesus with, claim that it was worthy of death, and then bring Jesus to him. He would take it from there.

The precision, among other things, gave away who was really after Jesus. He's taken from Caiaphas' home to Pilate's residence at sunrise (about 6:00 AM), Pilate questions Jesus, Pilate send Jesus to Herod Antipas, Herod questions Jesus, Herod sends Jesus back to Pilate, Pilate presents Jesus to 'the people', Pilate washes his hands of the Jesus affair, Jesus is scourged and mocked, Jesus carries the cross to Calvary, Jesus is stripped and then nailed to the cross; and this was all acomplished in the space of three hours. That takes military precision, and there was only one man in Jerusalem who could organize that: Pontius Pilate.

And how could Pilate be assured that 'the people' would call for Jesus' death and insist on the release of Barabbas? 'The people' were Pilate's own soldiers dressed as civilians. According to Josephus he'd used this tactic before in Jerusalem. There was a gathering of people there on another occasion that Pilate was concerned would turn into a riot, so he ordered his soldiers to take off their uniforms, dress in civilian garb, and mingle with the crowd. At a prearranged signal the soldiers pulled weapons from inside their clothing, attacked the real civilians around them, and successfully scattered the crowd. It had worked once; it would work again.

A glaring clue as to whom the crowd really was is what they said: "We have no king but Caesar," and "His blood be on us and on our children," are declarations that were each a gross violation of Torah. But they conformed exactly to Jus Romana, in which their king was to be seen only as the person on the imperial throne, and a man could legally kill his own children for disobeying him, even if those children were themselves adults at the time.

And why did they want to release Barabbas? Because Barabbas was already dead. Again we have failed to note roman procedure. When the romans had a prisoner already in custody, as Barabbas was, the scourging took place the day before the prisoner was scheduled to be crucified, not the day of his crucifixion. Barabbas had been scourged the previous day, and the '39 lashes' did not apply to a roman scourging. They could wield the flagrum until they were too weak to wield it any more, and there could also be multiple scourgers. Barabbas had been charged with murder and insurrection, which meant that he had killed roman soldiers. They had a score to settle with him, so I seriously doubt if he was even alive when they were through scourging him. If we was, he died soon afterward.

As for God's purpose for what really took place, namely, the payment made for our sinfulness and our salvation's being earned for us, we cannot 'lump' that into a single theory. God insists on perfection, not just being 'good enough'. In his eyes there is no such thing as being good enough; we're either sinners lost in our sins, or we're righteous as God himself deems righteousnss to entail. We find in Romans 3:19-26 that the law didn't make us righteous; instead, it showed us how sinful we really are.

But God determined that rather than 'write us off' he would himself make it possible for us to obtain the righteousness as a gift that we could never attain as a salary. Through his own work he would bridge the gulf that separates our sinfulness from his insistence on perfect righteousness. His justice had been satisfied because he himself had satisfied it through sacrificing his Son. Now instead of putting our trust in the vain attempt to obey all the laws which God requires to be followed in order to earn our righteousness, we could put our trust in God's promise to us that if we trust in the sacrifice that he himself accomplished through his Son Jesus Christ, he would freely cleanse us of our sinfulness.

 

[heymikey80]

Yes, I doubt there is a single explanation when it comes to historical events and multiple people each with motives.

What impresses my mind is, there's something significant about God finding it necessary not to "let this cup pass from Me", as Jesus said.

 

[AndOne]

Mikey - I would venture to say that there is scriptural support for each of the theories you presented...

 

[heymikey80]

Mikey - I would venture to say that there is scriptural support for each of the theories you presented...

Yes, I'm not averse to any particular point made. In point of fact I think Substitutionary Atonement is about the best developed view, integrating the most articles of Scripture.

Christus Victor seems to account for the rest, representing Christ's overcoming of sin and bringing His enemies into captivity.

I've often thought that these two ideas covers predominantly what Scripture says: that the elements described in government theology is covered under the CV model rather well, and so is ransom theory; and that the elements described by satisfaction theory are well-explained under Substitutionary Atonement.

What finally interests me is some way to unify these two concepts. Maybe it's not what was meant, maybe it's simply intended to be illustrations. But the concepts are largely all we have to go on.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

I myself am in full agreement with N.T. Wright when he says that Christus Victor is the major underlying idea of Scripture - but I think rightly understood each of the various theories has its place. Jesus defeated death and the powers and broke the power of sin - Jesus died in our place as a ransom and substitute - He was bruised for our transgressions.

What I fully reject is the offended king model - i.e., our finite sins are against an infinite God and therefore offend Him infinitely and require infinite punishment which was absorbed by Jesus, or anything of that nature. Things like that are caricatures most of the time - but I've seen major theologians put forward the idea that Jesus was a lightning rod to absorb God's anger, and I fully reject it.

 

[heymikey80]

With the number of parables including an offended king or landowner in them, I'm not really certain that can be excluded. Our culture is obsessed with tolerance, and so wishing we had a more tolerant God is the spirit of the age. So I would expect God is less tolerant than our culture wants.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

With the number of parables including an offended king or landowner in them, I'm not really certain that can be excluded. Our culture is obsessed with tolerance, and so wishing we had a more tolerant God is the spirit of the age. So I would expect God is less tolerant than our culture wants.

A valid point - but let me assure you, I'm not advocating for a more tolerant God because of any culture. I don't really think I'm advocating a more tolerant God at all, actually - if I was advocating that, I'd throw in my hat with folks like Spong and the like.

But I do find the offended king model to be weak - I just don't see God as an offended liege-lord who must have his justice satisfied at the risk of having his honor infinitely offended, or anything like that. I don't see the more grim parables Jesus told as saying that at all, honestly.

 

[bling]

Personally, I find this a very compelling question, though it's heavily studied and there are serious and bellicose advocates on all sides.

I apologize if this turns out to attract some sharp or shallow responses attacking different sides of the argument. I'm not really interested in attacks. I'm more interested in the models that are proposed, and how they are progressing. I find it sad that some models only progress by attacking other sides, too. I'll express my disdain when that kind of argument appears. I hope you'll do the same -- nicely -- even when you see something of the same growing in my posts.

There are a few ways of dealing with this issue historically, but I think there are also some developments today that move things along. So I'll try to describe some of the theories and their progressions.

Satisfaction Theory -- the idea that the Crucifixion is required to make restitution for sin. Sin is seen as a massive offense against an infinite God.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development from Satisfaction Theory that builds on substitutionary imputation to satisfy the sentence for sin on someone else's account.

Governmental Theory essentially develops from this, but moves far afield from Satisfaction theory in that Christ's Crucifixion is a demonstration to people of God's opposition and pending destruction of sin, but not a particular atonement of individuals. It's a setting-up of a group, a communion (that is, Christ's Church), under which people who are accepted into this group are rescued through the Crucifixion.

Ransom Theory -- the idea that the Crucifixion is required to release people from their captivity to death.

Christus Victor Theory seems to develop ransom theory in another line I think away from the concept of "ransom", pointing out that the death of Christ as a criminal would inevitably lead Him into the stronghold of humanity's captivity in sin and death, only to burst its chains through His power.

There're more, and obviously I'm not going to detail them all nor lay claim to advocating them all: I'm merely setting out those I've seen as far as I understand them, which is not in depth -- that's for advocates to describe.

I have a problem with all these alternatives and could not sell any agnostic on any of them, so I developed my own idea:


Understanding atonement is not easy and trying to understand the cross from a “non-Christian” background is very difficult (the Bible tells us the cross is foolishness to the world.)

Death can be physical or spiritual and we know sin produces “death” so that has to be spiritual since we all do not immediately die when we sin.

Physical death since Christ went to the cross and especially rose from the death has lost its significance since it now becomes: ”The way good people get to go home and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff.”

God would realize we would sin and if any of us think about the situation we would realize all mature adults would/will sin.

Sin is not the problem (unforgiven sin can be a huge problem).

Being “sinless” is not the objective and really never was.

Yes, God can forgive sins without the need for anything, but we as humans need to feel disciplined (punished) for our transgressions (as any child would feel of a wonderful parent to know that parent is truly concerned for them). God also need to show total consistency (justice) so equivalent punishment is needed for equivalent offences.

Everything God does is to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective and that everything includes allowing Christ to go to the cross. (It is totally for our sake and not for God’s sake.)

There are some things even God cannot do: God cannot make a being that has been around forever and was not made. But the one thing in this matter God cannot do is make humans initially or instinctively with Godly type Love (that would be robotic type love) and God cannot be loving toward us and force us to accept His Love (that would be a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun). Accepting God’s Love as a free undeserving gift (Charity) is the objective and extremely easy in some ways and very hard in other ways.

This takes some thinking:

1. God is doing all He can to help willing humans fulfill their objective, so whatever is happening it is for the sake of willing humans and not for God’s sake.

2. “Punishment” is a form of discipline and discipline has lots of benefits: Deterrent for future offences by the person being punished and others, is just and consistent, shows we are children and God is our parent, and relieves the concern with not being “punished” yet.

3. The severity of the offence is often determined by the severity of the punishment and sin is a huge offence carrying a huge debt.

4. As a wonderful Parent God would need to see to it that His Children were disciplined (punished).

I have written a parable to help explain:

There is battle going on and you as an old man leave you post. The crime is punishable by 40 lashes or equivalent, but that will kill you. Your young innocent son offers to take your place and explains to the judge (general) that; 40 lashes on him will cause you tremendous pain and anguish. The judge (general) refuses because that would not be just to punish an innocent for the guilty (Whipping Boy). The innocent son then says: “I will go over to the enemy’s camp for my father’s sake and they will beat me and imprison me until the end of the war”. The Judge (general) says he cannot stop the young man from doing such a thing and knows this will really hurt the father when you find out, so the judge will not have to punish you father (justice has been done). You plead for the son’s return, but there is really no other way for you to be punished and live.


When you come to the realization of what Christ has done it is painful and heart retching (like in Acts 2:37 we are to feel the same way), but there is this tremendous Love shown in what Christ and God did that keeps the thought of the cross from becoming debilitating. We should look at the cross with mixed emotions.

It is unjust to arbitrarily forgive some people and not forgive others, consistency is important. Also, discipline and forgiveness have different objectives. We forgive our children, but discipline (punish) with time out or something like that is so they know: we are very concerned about their behavior, there are consequences to their actions, If they are playing in the street when they have been told not to, the punishment will be more suffer showing more significance than eating in the living room, we are fair and just, we do what we say, and we love them.

What Christ went through is what I deserve to go through for my sins. The price of sin is huge. But that also means I have been forgiven of much and Christ (and really our own experiences) has taught us “…He that is forgiven much will Love much…”. All this is being done to help us “Love Much!!!” This is a Godly type Love that can thus compel us to be like God (who is Love) and Love with all our heart, soul, mind and energy. This Love is the greatest and most powerful gift in all universes (compelling God to do all He does), but it must be accepted as pure charity (that is what it is).

Humans have a really hard time accepting huge gifts as pure charity that cost the giver big time. The gift of Godly type Love is really huge since Love is the most powerful force in all universes causing God to do all He does.

 

[virgilio]

I have a problem with all these alternatives and could not sell any agnostic on any of them, so I developed my own idea:


Understanding atonement is not easy and trying to understand the cross from a “non-Christian” background is very difficult (the Bible tells us the cross is foolishness to the world.)

Death can be physical or spiritual and we know sin produces “death” so that has to be spiritual since we all do not immediately die when we sin.

Physical death since Christ went to the cross and especially rose from the death has lost its significance since it now becomes: ”The way good people get to go home and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff.”

God would realize we would sin and if any of us think about the situation we would realize all mature adults would/will sin.

Sin is not the problem (unforgiven sin can be a huge problem).

Being “sinless” is not the objective and really never was.

Yes, God can forgive sins without the need for anything, but we as humans need to feel disciplined (punished) for our transgressions (as any child would feel of a wonderful parent to know that parent is truly concerned for them). God also need to show total consistency (justice) so equivalent punishment is needed for equivalent offences.

Everything God does is to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective and that everything includes allowing Christ to go to the cross. (It is totally for our sake and not for God’s sake.)

There are some things even God cannot do: God cannot make a being that has been around forever and was not made. But the one thing in this matter God cannot do is make humans initially or instinctively with Godly type Love (that would be robotic type love) and God cannot be loving toward us and force us to accept His Love (that would be a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun). Accepting God’s Love as a free undeserving gift (Charity) is the objective and extremely easy in some ways and very hard in other ways.

This takes some thinking:

1. God is doing all He can to help willing humans fulfill their objective, so whatever is happening it is for the sake of willing humans and not for God’s sake.

2. “Punishment” is a form of discipline and discipline has lots of benefits: Deterrent for future offences by the person being punished and others, is just and consistent, shows we are children and God is our parent, and relieves the concern with not being “punished” yet.

3. The severity of the offence is often determined by the severity of the punishment and sin is a huge offence carrying a huge debt.

4. As a wonderful Parent God would need to see to it that His Children were disciplined (punished).

I have written a parable to help explain:

There is battle going on and you as an old man leave you post. The crime is punishable by 40 lashes or equivalent, but that will kill you. Your young innocent son offers to take your place and explains to the judge (general) that; 40 lashes on him will cause you tremendous pain and anguish. The judge (general) refuses because that would not be just to punish an innocent for the guilty (Whipping Boy). The innocent son then says: “I will go over to the enemy’s camp for my father’s sake and they will beat me and imprison me until the end of the war”. The Judge (general) says he cannot stop the young man from doing such a thing and knows this will really hurt the father when you find out, so the judge will not have to punish you father (justice has been done). You plead for the son’s return, but there is really no other way for you to be punished and live.


When you come to the realization of what Christ has done it is painful and heart retching (like in Acts 2:37 we are to feel the same way), but there is this tremendous Love shown in what Christ and God did that keeps the thought of the cross from becoming debilitating. We should look at the cross with mixed emotions.

It is unjust to arbitrarily forgive some people and not forgive others, consistency is important. Also, discipline and forgiveness have different objectives. We forgive our children, but discipline (punish) with time out or something like that is so they know: we are very concerned about their behavior, there are consequences to their actions, If they are playing in the street when they have been told not to, the punishment will be more suffer showing more significance than eating in the living room, we are fair and just, we do what we say, and we love them.

What Christ went through is what I deserve to go through for my sins. The price of sin is huge. But that also means I have been forgiven of much and Christ (and really our own experiences) has taught us “…He that is forgiven much will Love much…”. All this is being done to help us “Love Much!!!” This is a Godly type Love that can thus compel us to be like God (who is Love) and Love with all our heart, soul, mind and energy. This Love is the greatest and most powerful gift in all universes (compelling God to do all He does), but it must be accepted as pure charity (that is what it is).

Humans have a really hard time accepting huge gifts as pure charity that cost the giver big time. The gift of Godly type Love is really huge since Love is the most powerful force in all universes causing God to do all He does.

Hi bling greetings,
Well said, an excellent post and parable.

Thanks and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

 

[heymikey80]

A valid point - but let me assure you, I'm not advocating for a more tolerant God because of any culture. I don't really think I'm advocating a more tolerant God at all, actually - if I was advocating that, I'd throw in my hat with folks like Spong and the like.

But I do find the offended king model to be weak - I just don't see God as an offended liege-lord who must have his justice satisfied at the risk of having his honor infinitely offended, or anything like that. I don't see the more grim parables Jesus told as saying that at all, honestly.

Well I don't see the issue of justice as extending to the issue of honor, although that may be part of other people's opinions. It's simply part of God's nature to keep integrity regarding His justice, and not a point of honor that He not miss anyone. But that makes the issue much more stringent. It'd be ontological instead of reputational.

The circumstances surrounding the parable of the minas in Luke 19 would tend toward the need to have justice served.

As for glory and honor being desired by God, I would think so. But I doubt God's glory and honor are isolated from His justice and grace.

 

[nobdysfool]

With the number of parables including an offended king or landowner in them, I'm not really certain that can be excluded. Our culture is obsessed with tolerance, and so wishing we had a more tolerant God is the spirit of the age. So I would expect God is less tolerant than our culture wants.

In comparison to what our culture views as tolerance, I would agree. However, it occurs to me that God is in some ways much more tolerant than we realize. When we look around us and see all the wickedness and flaunting of wicked actions, desires, and the like, it amazes me that there aren't frequent bolts of lightning coming down and incinerating the propagators of that wickedness. I know that we should not view that tolerance as tacit approval, as the unsaved do. That kind of tolerance can probably be more correctly viewed as patience, patience of a kind and scope that none of us could really ever approach.

It boggles the mind sometimes to ponder it.

 

[heymikey80]

The level of God's patience with our sinfulness is yes, profound.

The way we approach tolerance, it seems to me more a benevolent ignoring. We don't agree, we allow it to happen, and we don't do anything to respond to offense or mistake in the sentiment.

The idea of redemption is largely missing in the modern use of the word "tolerate". But in the sense of "putting up with" the vast level of corruption in our lives, yes, God's immensely tolerant.

 

[Si_monfaith]

I myself am in full agreement with N.T. Wright when he says that Christus Victor is the major underlying idea of Scripture - but I think rightly understood each of the various theories has its place. Jesus defeated death and the powers and broke the power of sin - Jesus died in our place as a ransom and substitute - He was bruised for our transgressions.

What I fully reject is the offended king model - i.e., our finite sins are against an infinite God and therefore offend Him infinitely and require infinite punishment which was absorbed by Jesus, or anything of that nature. Things like that are caricatures most of the time - but I've seen major theologians put forward the idea that Jesus was a lightning rod to absorb God's anger, and I fully reject it.

You mean to say God wasn't angry with Jesus by transferring His wrath due upon us on to Jesus?

 

[Si_monfaith]

In comparison to what our culture views as tolerance, I would agree. However, it occurs to me that God is in some ways much more tolerant than we realize. When we look around us and see all the wickedness and flaunting of wicked actions, desires, and the like, it amazes me that there aren't frequent bolts of lightning coming down and incinerating the propagators of that wickedness. I know that we should not view that tolerance as tacit approval, as the unsaved do. That kind of tolerance can probably be more correctly viewed as patience, patience of a kind and scope that none of us could really ever approach.

It boggles the mind sometimes to ponder it.

Was God tolerant on His elect because Jesus has taken their wrath upon Him?

 

[Si_monfaith]

I have a problem with all these alternatives and could not sell any agnostic on any of them, so I developed my own idea:


Understanding atonement is not easy and trying to understand the cross from a “non-Christian” background is very difficult (the Bible tells us the cross is foolishness to the world.)

Death can be physical or spiritual and we know sin produces “death” so that has to be spiritual since we all do not immediately die when we sin.

Physical death since Christ went to the cross and especially rose from the death has lost its significance since it now becomes: ”The way good people get to go home and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff.”

God would realize we would sin and if any of us think about the situation we would realize all mature adults would/will sin.

Sin is not the problem (unforgiven sin can be a huge problem).

Being “sinless” is not the objective and really never was.

Yes, God can forgive sins without the need for anything, but we as humans need to feel disciplined (punished) for our transgressions (as any child would feel of a wonderful parent to know that parent is truly concerned for them). God also need to show total consistency (justice) so equivalent punishment is needed for equivalent offences.

Everything God does is to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective and that everything includes allowing Christ to go to the cross. (It is totally for our sake and not for God’s sake.)

There are some things even God cannot do: God cannot make a being that has been around forever and was not made. But the one thing in this matter God cannot do is make humans initially or instinctively with Godly type Love (that would be robotic type love) and God cannot be loving toward us and force us to accept His Love (that would be a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun). Accepting God’s Love as a free undeserving gift (Charity) is the objective and extremely easy in some ways and very hard in other ways.

This takes some thinking:

1. God is doing all He can to help willing humans fulfill their objective, so whatever is happening it is for the sake of willing humans and not for God’s sake.

2. “Punishment” is a form of discipline and discipline has lots of benefits: Deterrent for future offences by the person being punished and others, is just and consistent, shows we are children and God is our parent, and relieves the concern with not being “punished” yet.

3. The severity of the offence is often determined by the severity of the punishment and sin is a huge offence carrying a huge debt.

4. As a wonderful Parent God would need to see to it that His Children were disciplined (punished).

I have written a parable to help explain:

There is battle going on and you as an old man leave you post. The crime is punishable by 40 lashes or equivalent, but that will kill you. Your young innocent son offers to take your place and explains to the judge (general) that; 40 lashes on him will cause you tremendous pain and anguish. The judge (general) refuses because that would not be just to punish an innocent for the guilty (Whipping Boy). The innocent son then says: “I will go over to the enemy’s camp for my father’s sake and they will beat me and imprison me until the end of the war”. The Judge (general) says he cannot stop the young man from doing such a thing and knows this will really hurt the father when you find out, so the judge will not have to punish you father (justice has been done). You plead for the son’s return, but there is really no other way for you to be punished and live.


When you come to the realization of what Christ has done it is painful and heart retching (like in Acts 2:37 we are to feel the same way), but there is this tremendous Love shown in what Christ and God did that keeps the thought of the cross from becoming debilitating. We should look at the cross with mixed emotions.

It is unjust to arbitrarily forgive some people and not forgive others, consistency is important. Also, discipline and forgiveness have different objectives. We forgive our children, but discipline (punish) with time out or something like that is so they know: we are very concerned about their behavior, there are consequences to their actions, If they are playing in the street when they have been told not to, the punishment will be more suffer showing more significance than eating in the living room, we are fair and just, we do what we say, and we love them.

What Christ went through is what I deserve to go through for my sins. The price of sin is huge. But that also means I have been forgiven of much and Christ (and really our own experiences) has taught us “…He that is forgiven much will Love much…”. All this is being done to help us “Love Much!!!” This is a Godly type Love that can thus compel us to be like God (who is Love) and Love with all our heart, soul, mind and energy. This Love is the greatest and most powerful gift in all universes (compelling God to do all He does), but it must be accepted as pure charity (that is what it is).

Humans have a really hard time accepting huge gifts as pure charity that cost the giver big time. The gift of Godly type Love is really huge since Love is the most powerful force in all universes causing God to do all He does.

Yes, God can forgive sins without the need for anything

If God can forgive sins without the need for Christ's death, does God need to send Christ to overcome sin through Christ's death?

 

[summerville]

The problem with theories is that they tend to compartmentalize. They want everything to fit on a particular shelf where they can view it objectively. This simply will not work wuth the passion of Christ; the entire incident was too complex.

What we have with Christ's passion and death is a happening within a happening. The chief priests, I suspect under the direct orders of Pilate himself, charged Jesus with a crime against their laws, only to bring him before Pilate for sentencing because of the Jus Gladii law he had enacted a few years earlier. This law stated that only the roman overseers had the authority to pass the sentence of death on any person in Judea, irregardless of the crime. The official version is that Pilate 'caved' to their demands and ordered Jesus' death despite misgivings.

But Pilate was no wimp. He had been sent to Judea in the first place due to his military background and the campaigns he had shown his bravery in along their borders with presentday Germany. He had attracted the attention of Sejanus, Tiberius' right-hand man in Rome at that time (Tiberius himself lived almost exclusively at his villa on the Isle of Capri), who saw him as the perfect man to be prefect of Judea, an area long known for its insurrections and riots. Sejanus is also known to have been a virulent antisemite, so his pick for prefect would have been one who believed in violence and cruelty toward them.

But Sejanus became too ambitious. He plotted to take the throne of emperor for himself. Tiberius found out what he was planning, and in one of his few trips to Rome exposed his treachery, accusing him of treason while they were both standing in the senate itself.

Sejanus was promptly removed from there and strangled in the traditional manner used for traitors. But not only was he strangled, but also his wife, his siblings, his two small children (it is recorded that they stood them back-to-back and strangled both of them at the same time), and even his slaves.

Afterwards Tiberius was even more paranoid than he had been prior to Sejanus' plot. Anything that could possibly lead to an insurrection was to be crushed, and anyone who attracted a large following of people was to be eliminated. And Judea was a hotbed for both of these.

And in the middle of this societal disaster here comes Jesus, preaching and healing and attracting large groups of people to him. The very thing that Tiberius insisted could not be tolerated was happening in, of all places, Judea, the country that Sejanus' comrade was in charge of. Pilate knew that he had to kill Jesus almost from the very moment when Jesus started gaining a reputation and attracting more-and-more people to him.In other words, Jesus'death was already in the works three years before it took place.

But Pilate had a second problem. If he simply grabbed Jesus and killed him, like he had so many others, the people might riot; Pilate could even end up with an insurrection on his hands. And even though Tiberius insisted that any and all possible threats to his reign be crushed mercilessly, he also insisted that the territories be kept docile so that the taxes would continue to flow into Rome's coffers. If pilate caused problems he would be in deep trouble with Tiberius, especially with Pilate's having been aided in his ambition by the very man who had tried to take Tiberius' throne.

So how does he kill a man, without it's looking as if he's the one ordering the man's death? He does it by ordering the priests in Jerusalem, most of whom were roman apointees under his direct control, to find something to charge Jesus with, claim that it was worthy of death, and then bring Jesus to him. He would take it from there.

The precision, among other things, gave away who was really after Jesus. He's taken from Caiaphas' home to Pilate's residence at sunrise (about 6:00 AM), Pilate questions Jesus, Pilate send Jesus to Herod Antipas, Herod questions Jesus, Herod sends Jesus back to Pilate, Pilate presents Jesus to 'the people', Pilate washes his hands of the Jesus affair, Jesus is scourged and mocked, Jesus carries the cross to Calvary, Jesus is stripped and then nailed to the cross; and this was all acomplished in the space of three hours. That takes military precision, and there was only one man in Jerusalem who could organize that: Pontius Pilate.

And how could Pilate be assured that 'the people' would call for Jesus' death and insist on the release of Barabbas? 'The people' were Pilate's own soldiers dressed as civilians. According to Josephus he'd used this tactic before in Jerusalem. There was a gathering of people there on another occasion that Pilate was concerned would turn into a riot, so he ordered his soldiers to take off their uniforms, dress in civilian garb, and mingle with the crowd. At a prearranged signal the soldiers pulled weapons from inside their clothing, attacked the real civilians around them, and successfully scattered the crowd. It had worked once; it would work again.

A glaring clue as to whom the crowd really was is what they said: "We have no king but Caesar," and "His blood be on us and on our children," are declarations that were each a gross violation of Torah. But they conformed exactly to Jus Romana, in which their king was to be seen only as the person on the imperial throne, and a man could legally kill his own children for disobeying him, even if those children were themselves adults at the time.

And why did they want to release Barabbas? Because Barabbas was already dead. Again we have failed to note roman procedure. When the romans had a prisoner already in custody, as Barabbas was, the scourging took place the day before the prisoner was scheduled to be crucified, not the day of his crucifixion. Barabbas had been scourged the previous day, and the '39 lashes' did not apply to a roman scourging. They could wield the flagrum until they were too weak to wield it any more, and there could also be multiple scourgers. Barabbas had been charged with murder and insurrection, which meant that he had killed roman soldiers. They had a score to settle with him, so I seriously doubt if he was even alive when they were through scourging him. If we was, he died soon afterward.

As for God's purpose for what really took place, namely, the payment made for our sinfulness and our salvation's being earned for us, we cannot 'lump' that into a single theory. God insists on perfection, not just being 'good enough'. In his eyes there is no such thing as being good enough; we're either sinners lost in our sins, or we're righteous as God himself deems righteousnss to entail. We find in Romans 3:19-26 that the law didn't make us righteous; instead, it showed us how sinful we really are.

But God determined that rather than 'write us off' he would himself make it possible for us to obtain the righteousness as a gift that we could never attain as a salary. Through his own work he would bridge the gulf that separates our sinfulness from his insistence on perfect righteousness. His justice had been satisfied because he himself had satisfied it through sacrificing his Son. Now instead of putting our trust in the vain attempt to obey all the laws which God requires to be followed in order to earn our righteousness, we could put our trust in God's promise to us that if we trust in the sacrifice that he himself accomplished through his Son Jesus Christ, he would freely cleanse us of our sinfulness.

You have completely absolved the Sanhedren. I keep thinking how most of Jesus ministry was in the North (Israel)and around Galilee where he was safe. Herod Antipas seems to have left Jesus alone or ignored him.

There was danger to Jesus in the South (Judea) where they largely despised Jews from the North.

 

[prodromos]

What is it with people resurrecting dead threads lately?

 

[bling]

If God can forgive sins without the need for Christ's death, does God need to send Christ to overcome sin through Christ's death?

Christ, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer all describe Christ’s crucifixion as an actual ransom payment, so there is a payment involve, but to whom?

It has to be to someone or it would not be a ransom/kidnapping scenario.

When we talk to nonbelievers, we are not trying to get them to believe some book, words, doctrine or philosophy, but we want them to accept through faith Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If that nonbeliever trust (has faith) in Christ and Him crucified a child is released and allowed to enter the kingdom where God the Father is, but if the nonbeliever refuses for lack of faith in Jesus Christ and Him crucified, a child is not set free to go to the Father. That nonbeliever is a perfect example of a criminal kidnapper and fully undeserving of Jesus Christ and him Crucified, which is what Christ and others say is the ransom payment.

God is not a criminal undeserving kidnapper holding His own children and satan is not changeable or has the power to hold God’s child back from God, so the unbeliever is the only excellent fit for the kidnapper in the atonement process.

Christ went to the cross not to do something for God since God needs nothing and is not lacking anything especially the Love to forgive you. The “problem” is with me excepting what Christ did “for” (as a benefit to help me) me and accepting (the blame) because of me, so I can experience being crucified with Christ for my sins (a fair/just disciplining).

 

[Si_monfaith]

Christ, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer all describe Christ’s crucifixion as an actual ransom payment, so there is a payment involve, but to whom?

It has to be to someone or it would not be a ransom/kidnapping scenario.

When we talk to nonbelievers, we are not trying to get them to believe some book, words, doctrine or philosophy, but we want them to accept through faith Jesus Christ and Him crucified. If that nonbeliever trust (has faith) in Christ and Him crucified a child is released and allowed to enter the kingdom where God the Father is, but if the nonbeliever refuses for lack of faith in Jesus Christ and Him crucified, a child is not set free to go to the Father. That nonbeliever is a perfect example of a criminal kidnapper and fully undeserving of Jesus Christ and him Crucified, which is what Christ and others say is the ransom payment.

God is not a criminal undeserving kidnapper holding His own children and satan is not changeable or has the power to hold God’s child back from God, so the unbeliever is the only excellent fit for the kidnapper in the atonement process.

Christ went to the cross not to do something for God since God needs nothing and is not lacking anything especially the Love to forgive you. The “problem” is with me excepting what Christ did “for” (as a benefit to help me) me and accepting (the blame) because of me, so I can experience being crucified with Christ for my sins (a fair/just disciplining).

Christ’s crucifixion as an actual ransom payment,

Was God angry with Adam Eve for starting to have the forbidden knowledge of good and evil which only God had (Genesis 3:22)?

a child is released and allowed to enter the kingdom where God the Father is

Is entering the kingdom the only goal? Don't we need to grow in knowledge of God?

That nonbeliever is a perfect example of a criminal kidnapper

So humans kidnapped themselves away from God?

Please answer in short & to the point manner.