Why did Jesus have to die?

[Inkfingers]

That covenant was an unconditional Covenant. Abraham or man had nothing to do with it. It was totally on God.

Which is why God had to pay the price.

What was flawed about the Mosaic Covenant?

See above (I edited to clarify)

 

[Steve Petersen]

Salvation in Christianity - Wikipedia

Five theologies of salvation in the Christian world. Penal substitution is actually quite late on the scene.

 

[Ken Rank]

Why did Messiah have to die? The simple answer is, "to reverse the curse of sin and death." The first Adam and second Adam came into this world without sin. Both were tempted and one gave in. The result of that was death. The second did not give in, he died without knowing sin but death was the wage for sin and he did not sin. So, the grave could not contain him, could not contain perfection, and he resurrected. When he did, he gained authority over death and now has the power to perfect anyone he desires. He dies to gain that authority... to be able to reverse the effects and wage of sin.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Which is why God had to pay the price.
The different beliefs of why Jesus had to die to satisy the requirements of God have already been established - long before we came along.

There are two main theories..
@Steve Peterson was nice enough to post all five, but most churches believe in one of two:

1. The Legal or Penal Substitutionary Sacrifice

Adam's sin was such a great offense against God, that a sacrifice sufficient to please God was necessary. Could man satisfy an infinite God? No. Jesus had to assume the role of satisfying the substitutionary atonement, since Jesus was God.
In effect, God was offering Himself for this task.
Ezekiel 34:11 states that God Himself will be the shepherd of His sheep.

2. The Spiritual Atonement, in the Wikipedia article submitted by the other poster, it would be the Christus Victorious version.

This is what God does in His mercy to save us from our sins...He saves us from satan's power...thus having a bad life here on earth and being condemned to eternal punishment.
Death is not the PENALTY for sin but is the CONSEQUENCE for sin. The WAGES of sin is death (not the PUNISHMENT)
Romans 6:23

Since God is the source of life, John 5 - the life is in the Vine (Jesus) - when we are reconciled to God we are re-connected to that source of life.

Penal view: "If you eat from the tree, I'll kill you"
Spiritual view: "If you eat from the tree, you will die"

I tend to believe the spiritual view but I can see a little bit of everything in each of the 5 views.

See above (I edited to clarify)

Which post??

 

[Micah888]

Yup, and God wanted to end the Covenant and bring in a new one.

To do that it meant death for one party, so God chose for it to be His, on the cross, as that is the price of a broken Covenant.

You still seem to be misunderstanding the reason why Christ died on the Cross. Please read and study Isaiah 53 and see if there is any mention of anyone breaking a covenant.

 

[Micah888]

Penal view: "If you eat from the tree, I'll kill you"
Spiritual view: "If you eat from the tree, you will die"

And pray tell why can both not be true at one and the same time?

In fact, the atoning work is Christ goes beyond any "theories" and encompasses all aspects of propitiation. To try and limit it is to misrepresent what was accomplished for our salvation.

 

[1213]

...

Jesus's death is God paying that price.

Any (polite ) thoughts on this?

Bible gives these reasons for the death of Jesus:

For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
Romans 14:9

Most assuredly I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit. He who loves his life will lose it. He who hates his life in this world will keep it to eternal life.
John 12:24-25

I believe the meaning of that is, by dying and rising from the death, Jesus gave example and courage to his disciples to continue fearlessly. Before it, disciples were afraid, and wouldn’t have done the work, which resulted also to this situation, where even we can hear the message. The parable of grain of wheat came true by death and resurrection of Jesus.

 

[Inkfingers]

The old covenant was made between God and Abraham - Genesis 12
The price of breaking that covenant was death - Genesis 15:9-18 Jeremiah 34:18-20
God wanted to bring in a new covenant - Jeremiah 31:31-34
Because the old covenant was flawed - Hebrews 8:7
Because it did not offer salvation - Romans 3:20
But to do that God would have to die, so the price God paid was death - Luke 22:20
That is how we are bought with His blood - 1 Corinthians 6:20
He paid that price because of our sins - Romans 4:25
Because we, in our sin, are unable to keep the first covenant - Romans 8:7
And yet despite that God still wanted to offer a way of salvation - John 3:16
So he took the punishment for our sinful inability to keep the first covenant which he then chose to break (as it was unconditional for mankind, so only he could end it) and replaced it with a new better one.

 

[GodsGrace101]

And pray tell why can both not be true at one and the same time?

In fact, the atoning work is Christ goes beyond any "theories" and encompasses all aspects of propitiation. To try and limit it is to misrepresent what was accomplished for our salvation.

I did say that there's some aspect of each in each of the models.
However, God saying DON'T EAT IT OR I'LL KILL YOU
and Him say IF YOU EAT IT YOU WILL DIE
is absolutely different.

In the former God is more of a jailkeeper, needing to jail those who disobey Him. This is a reason why it's called penal...

In the latter God is a God of love and desires to save you from satan's lies and enslavement.

In Genesis 2:17 God said:
"for in the day that you eat from it, you shall surely die"
NASB

That sounds to me like the "spiritual" atonement.

 

[GodsGrace101]

The old covenant was made between God and Abraham - Genesis 12
The price of breaking that covenant was death - Genesis 15:9-18 Jeremiah 34:18-20
God wanted to bring in a new covenant - Jeremiah 31:31-34
Because the old covenant was flawed - Hebrews 8:7
Because it did not offer salvation - Romans 3:20
But to do that God would have to die, so the price God paid was death - Luke 22:20
That is how we are bought with His blood - 1 Corinthians 6:20
He paid that price because of our sins - Romans 4:25
Because we, in our sin, are unable to keep the first covenant - Romans 8:7
And yet despite that God still wanted to offer a way of salvation - John 3:16
So he took the punishment for our sinful inability to keep the first covenant which he then chose to break (as it was unconditional for mankind, so only he could end it) and replaced it with a new better one.

Please explain the first covenant.

 

[razzelflabben]

The old covenant was made between God and Abraham - Genesis 12
The price of breaking that covenant was death - Genesis 15:9-18 Jeremiah 34:18-20
God wanted to bring in a new covenant - Jeremiah 31:31-34
Because the old covenant was flawed - Hebrews 8:7
Because it did not offer salvation - Romans 3:20

it offered salvation or the price would not have been death...the problem was that it was a sacrifice that was not once for all...iow's it needed renewed.

But to do that God would have to die, so the price God paid was death - Luke 22:20
That is how we are bought with His blood - 1 Corinthians 6:20
He paid that price because of our sins - Romans 4:25
Because we, in our sin, are unable to keep the first covenant - Romans 8:7
And yet despite that God still wanted to offer a way of salvation - John 3:16

I've been trying to figure out what you don't get and this might be what it is...salvation was part of the old covenant it was just a salvation that required animal blood to cover the price of our sins.

So he took the punishment for our sinful inability to keep the first covenant which he then chose to break (as it was unconditional for mankind, so only he could end it) and replaced it with a new better one.

this might also be part of your problem...the old covenant was not broken but fulfilled by a blood sacrifice that was lasting. See, the old covenant required animal sacrifice or blood/death for our sins...that was not done away with but a new, better sacrifice was offered in place of the animal sacrifice that the law of the old covenant required.

 

[GodsGrace101]

it offered salvation or the price would not have been death...the problem was that it was a sacrifice that was not once for all...iow's it needed renewed. I've been trying to figure out what you don't get and this might be what it is...salvation was part of the old covenant it was just a salvation that required animal blood to cover the price of our sins. this might also be part of your problem...the old covenant was not broken but fulfilled by a blood sacrifice that was lasting. See, the old covenant required animal sacrifice or blood/death for our sins...that was not done away with but a new, better sacrifice was offered in place of the animal sacrifice that the law of the old covenant required.

Not only this...
But faith was also required in the Old Testament and all the covenants. At least the ones that were bi-lateral.
(which included the cooperation of man).

 

[Inkfingers]

Please explain the first covenant.

Read your Bible.

 

[Inkfingers]

it offered salvation

The first covenant does not save. It only convicts.

Salvation only comes with the second covenant.

this might also be part of your problem...the old covenant was not broken but fulfilled by a blood sacrifice that was lasting.

The old covenant was an endless covenant, but was ended by Christ on the cross paying the price of ending it.

 

[Serving Zion]

So how do you arrive at "absence of Penal Substitutionary Atonement"?

It is impossible to find agreement unless agreement is being sought. I did once hold a PSA doctrine in the core of my faith, but it didn't withstand the questions that came from my enquiry toward it. Having said that, I'd like to establish whether or not we might have an opportunity to find agreement today!

When you said that "a Divine Substitute had to be provided to pay the penalty for the sins of the whole world" - who do you suppose was demanding that payment?

 

[Micah888]

When you said that "a Divine Substitute had to be provided to pay the penalty for the sins of the whole world" - who do you suppose was demanding that payment?

God Himself was demanding that payment. Had that payment, penalty, and ransom not been paid by Christ, God could not possibly be reconciled to sinful humanity.

When God told Adam "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die", He meant exactly what He said. God had both the first and second deaths in view. Not only was Adam immediately separated from God, but he died physically and brought the curse of sin and death upon the human race. Now all are guilty before God.

Since then the death penalty (eventually eternal Hell) was applicable to every human being. But in order to be reconciled to humanity God demanded a just payment for the sin-debt. Thus Christ is called "a ransom for all" and the Bible says that He "tasted death for every man". So this was God's infinite grace making provision for the sin-debt and also making a way for all men to be saved.

 

[Serving Zion]

God Himself was demanding that payment. Had that payment, penalty, and ransom not been paid by Christ, God could not possibly be reconciled to sinful humanity.

When God told Adam "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die", He meant exactly what He said. God had both the first and second deaths in view. Not only was Adam immediately separated from God, but he died physically and brought the curse of sin and death upon the human race. Now all are guilty before God.

Since then the death penalty (eventually eternal Hell) was applicable to every human being. But in order to be reconciled to humanity God demanded a just payment for the sin-debt. Thus Christ is called "a ransom for all" and the Bible says that He "tasted death for every man". So this was God's infinite grace making provision for the sin-debt and also making a way for all men to be saved.

Thank you for that answer Micah. Personally, I have not been able to swallow the idea that it was God who demanded payment of death for our sin, because that is to portray God as someone rather different than He is known to be. There is in fact two other options: Satan and man.

I just wonder if you could explain why you have chosen to say that God demanded the payment of death for our sin instead of Satan or man?

 

[Micah888]

Thank you for that answer Micah. Personally, I have not been able to swallow the idea that it was God who demanded payment of death for our sin, because that is to portray God as someone rather different than He is known to be. There is in fact two other options: Satan and man.

I just wonder if you could explain why you have chosen to say that God demanded the payment of death for our sin instead of Satan or man?

Unless Christians fully understand the ABSOLUTE holiness and righteousness of God (which includes His perfect justice) they will never understand why our holy God demanded the just retribution, punishment, and penalty for sin.

1. SIN IS OPPOSITION TO THE HOLY CHARACTER OF GOD.
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5).

2. SIN IS THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE HOLY LAW OF GOD
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)

3. THEREFORE GOD'S WRATH IS REVEALED FROM HEAVEN AGAINST SIN
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness... But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds:...But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile... (Rom 1:18; 2:5-9)

So now that we know how God views sin, we can understand clearly why a penalty had to be paid.

 

[dqhall]

I've been thinking on this recently and came up with the following (which I do not know if others have said before me).

If God wanted to break the Covenant of Genesis 12 and Genesis 15:9-18, to bring in the new Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34, he had to pay the price of breaking a covenant and die (as it says, about the price of breaking a covenant, in Jeremiah 34:18-20).

Jesus's death is God paying that price.

Any (polite ) thoughts on this?

The books of Moses foretold the coming of Jesus:
Deuteronomy 18:15 (WEB) Yahweh your God will raise up to you a prophet from among you, of your brothers, like me. You shall listen to him.

Jesus became God's word in the flesh:
John 1:45 (WEB) Philip found Nathanael, and said to him, "We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote: Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

The chief priests and temple establishment did not recognize God. They had their own selfish business to attend to. Those who had remained faithful to the Jesus' Gospel ministry received visitation from the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).

 

[Anguspure]

I've been thinking on this recently and came up with the following (which I do not know if others have said before me).

If God wanted to break the Covenant of Genesis 12 and Genesis 15:9-18, to bring in the new Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34, he had to pay the price of breaking a covenant and die (as it says, about the price of breaking a covenant, in Jeremiah 34:18-20).

Jesus's death is God paying that price.

Any (polite ) thoughts on this?

Is this what you are looking for?
Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7)