Why did Jesus have to die?

[Steve Petersen]

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?

The Scripture say that 'the soul that sins shall die.'

We all sin and we all die because we sin. Price paid.

 

[Andrew Jeremiah]

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?

I see no inconsistencies between these verses when the correct perspective and understanding is applied.

There is no necessity in "break[-ing] Covenant" here in these passages you provided.

God did not "break" any Covenant He's made in Trinity or to man.

It's a matter of perspective.

From the Garden the instruction of sacrifice and death and the atonement had been dispatched to Adam and Eve and they both instituted God's command from that day on. Seth is named as a son of God in Covenant (but there can be others) with God. God has had His people separate from the heathen world since the beginning.

 

[gideon123]

Yes .. see Mark, Chapter 12, vs 1-11.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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?

There is the often quoted view that God demands a death penalty for sin and Jesus' death satisfies that demand of God's.

There is the identification view . . . Jesus comes and becomes one with those who accept Him. He takes on our death and we take on His resurrection.

And in a much rarer expression there is the consequence view. God forgives us but His forgiveness is only legal when He accepts the consequences, i.e. His death. Your post is a version of that.

But I suspect we will only truly understand the need for Christ's death on the other side.

 

[Serving Zion]

The Scripture say that 'the soul that sins shall die.'

We all sin and we all die because we sin. Price paid.

Scripture says that we can come back into life too (1 John 3:14), that shows the wages of sin is a spiritual death - cut off from the life of Christ (John 1:4, John 15:9-11, 1 John 1:5-7).

 

[Serving Zion]

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.

Yep, I recognise what your view is expressing and I only need to be clear that I do not share in that teaching. We are not unified in spirit when you teach those ideas.

If you have concerns that I may have disregarded particular scripture, I will welcome your enquiry to ensure that my view cannot be changed, but you should not expect me to wrestle with you in order to force an agreement.

Thank you for clarifying your position, and may The Lord lead us into unity of truth if it would please Him.

 

[Open Heart]

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 Old Covenant is not broken. It is eternal

I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. Genesis 17:7

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29

 

[razzelflabben]

The first covenant does not save. It only convicts.

Salvation only comes with the second covenant.

not so...it is a different kind of salvation that what we know in the NT but it is still salvation. Salvation is basically a change in relationship. IOW's it is to enter fellowship with God...In the old covenant that came through sacrifices. In the NT the sacrifice needed is Christ. Are you sure you understand the old covenant?

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

Christ per say was NOT part of the old covenant but it was a way for man to fellowship with God. That is what the mercy seat, priests, blood sacrifices etc. were all about.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Read your Bible.

My dear inkyfingers,
YOU are the one who should be not only reading his bible,
but also studying some theology.

I hope you know that YOU would not be able to put together the covenants found in the bible -- this took theologians to accomplish.

I asked you to explain the first covenant because you keep referring to the first covenant and the one YOU are referring to is NOT the first covenant.

Maybe you could start from the REAL first covenant which is the Edenic Covenant and work your way up.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

your missing the one that God tells us in His word...it is the natural law that demanded death. IOW's because of the holy nature of God and the unholy nature of man, there is only one way, that is death, it's the natural law of how a holy God can have fellowship with an unholy people.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

My dear inkyfingers,
YOU are the one who should be not only reading his bible,
but also studying some theology.

Pardon, but studying theology is likely/possibly what got him in trouble;
or whoever it is who 'trained'/'taught' him the things he is mistaken about.

I hope you know that YOU would not be able to put together the covenants found in the bible -- this took theologians to accomplish.

Whatever theologians did, was not required. (and usually cause problems throughout the world throughout history) ...

Yahweh Himself put the covenants together, His Own Word, Promises, and His Carrying Out His Promises.

 

[GodsGrace101]

The first covenant does not save. It only convicts.

Salvation only comes with the second covenant.



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

There you go again...
The FIRST COVENANT.
Are you speaking about the Edenic Covenant?
No.
Then why do you keep calling the Mosaic Covenant the FIRST covenant?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Pardon, but studying theology is likely/possibly what got him in trouble;
or whoever it is who 'trained'/'taught' him the things he is mistaken about.


Whatever theologians did, was not required. (and usually cause problems throughout the world throughout history) ...

Yahweh Himself put the covenants together, His Own Word, Promises, and His Carrying Out His Promises.

Absolutely.
God walked through those dead carcasses in the Abrahamic.
What I'm saying is that it would be REALLY DIFFICULT for an ordinarly person reading the O.T. to put together the covenants. It's difficult enough learning them and teaching them when it's all laid out for us.

And, yes, some theologians do cause problems, but when I was studying the covenants I came across no disagreements.

 

[Inkfingers]

Maybe you could start from the REAL first covenant which is the Edenic Covenant and work your way up.

Maybe you should google "the first covenant" and not be so patronising?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Maybe you should google "the first covenant" and not be so patronising?

Sir,
I didn't learn about the covenants from google.

You may refer to the Mosaic Covenant
or you may refer to it as the Old Covenant
but you cannot call it the FIRST COVENANT because the first covenant was the Edenic Covenant.

YOU can also google this.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

but when I was studying the covenants I came across no disagreements.

Almost everytime there's a thread on the covenants, most posts are contrary to God's Plan, Purpose and Scripture,
so I don't know how they could be 'studied' without seeing disagreements.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

google this.

Does a bunch of people g**gling make a gaggle ?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Almost everytime there's a thread on the covenants, most posts are contrary to God's Plan, Purpose and Scripture,
so I don't know how they could be 'studied' without seeing disagreements.

There were many covenants made between God and man.
Edenic
Adamic
Noahic
Abrahamic
Mosaic
and subs, like the Palestinian
Davidic
New Covenant

There is no disagreement as to the above and what they were and how they came about.

Everyone agrees that the Edenic and New were unilateral, for example. I remember that for the New Covenant some believed Communion was the sign and some believed Baptism was the sign. I really don't remember any other disagreement.

I haven't followed any threads on the covenants so I really don't know what you're speaking about.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Does a bunch of people g**gling make a gaggle ?

I don't know what a gaggle is...
But if it's something BAD,
YES, people googling their faith makes a gaggle!!

Must I now google gaggle to find out what it means???

 

[Steve Petersen]

Scripture says that we can come back into life too (1 John 3:14), that shows the wages of sin is a spiritual death - cut off from the life of Christ (John 1:4, John 15:9-11, 1 John 1:5-7).

You will not find even a hint at this theology in the OT.