Why did Jesus have to die?

[markie]

Hello all,
This is my first post, so I'm not sure if this is the right forum. First of all, let me tell you I'm agnostic.
I keep hearing that Jesus had to die for our sins. I know it is very fundamental in the Christian faith. My question is "why?"
If God is all-loving, can't He just forgive if you are truly repentant? I know God is thought of to be both merciful and just. Where's the justice in Jesus dying for my sins? That was a horrible death he had to die (I've read the gospels and saw "The Passion of the Christ"). Why the physical sacrifice? Why can't we just ask for forgiveness, learn from our mistakes, make amends, and be forgiven?
Maybe there really isn't an answer, and we have to rely on faith. But, as of now, I have no faith. I'm one of those rational, logical, quiet types that likes to absorb information, get all the facts if possible, and then make a decision. It's served me well in life.
Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
Boomygrrl

I used to wonder about that too, but Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Malichi 3:6 says For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
It might seem like God could just forgive us, but I don't think people would learn anything if He did. I guess we had to see the enormity of our sin and see the consequences of that sin.
Genesis 2:17 says But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Something had to die in the day that Adam ate from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God killed an animal and wrapped them in the skins and they sacrificed a sheep or a goat every year in the old testament. Nobody was worthy pay for Adams sin in the Old Testament. Jesus is the only man who was worthy to pay for it. That's why Jesus died, but He didn't have to He did it because He loves you and me and everybody. He died to pay for Adams sin, and so we would have a way to be in fellowship with God.

 

[Boomygrrl]

Thanks everybody for all of your responses.
I appreciate the time spent, and I am grateful that there are people who care enough to take this much time out to explain their beliefs.
Although many of you answered the question "why?" Me, being the annoying "two year old" keeps wanting to ask "why?" to the answers you provided. In other words, dig deeper.
I have a feeling many will answer because that is what God wants and that we cannot really understand the mind or will of God. I respect that on one level. I still have this tendency to want to go "yes, but..." or say "I understand what you're saying, but it still doesn't make sense." In other words, on one level it fits well with the Christian thought but on another level it's completely foreign to someone who doesn't buy into it yet. I hope I'm making sense. Again, thanks to everybody.

Boomygrrl

 

[markie]

Thanks everybody for all of your responses.
I appreciate the time spent, and I am grateful that there are people who care enough to take this much time out to explain their beliefs.
Although many of you answered the question "why?" Me, being the annoying "two year old" keeps wanting to ask "why?" to the answers you provided. In other words, dig deeper.
I have a feeling many will answer because that is what God wants and that we cannot really understand the mind or will of God. I respect that on one level. I still have this tendency to want to go "yes, but..." or say "I understand what you're saying, but it still doesn't make sense." In other words, on one level it fits well with the Christian thought but on another level it's completely foreign to someone who doesn't buy into it yet. I hope I'm making sense. Again, thanks to everybody.

Boomygrrl

I think what you're asking is why is the wages of sin death? Maybe so God can show us the how much He loves us by providing a way through Jesus Christ that we might be saved.
Of course I don't know, that seems like a harsh penalty for displeasing someone, but God said here's what I don't want you to do and here's what will happen if you do it. Adam who represented all of humanity, did it anyway so man will have to pay the consequences. The good news is that we have a way where we can be reunited with the Father through His Son Jesus Christ. You don't even have to kneel, just where you are ask Him to come into your heart and He will. He loves you and He wants to come into your heart but you have to ask. God Bless You.

 

[Boomygrrl]

Two replies caught my attention as being something I have not thought of before. The two replies responded something like:
Jesus had to die so that we can see the consequences of our sins;
Jesus died to show how much God really loves us, and by just forgiving we don't really grasp the totality of that love (the sacrifice he had to make).
Although it still raises more questions, at least it provides something I can think about.
Questions to these responses:
1. Why do we need to see the consequences of our sins as a collective? I know that in my everyday life I can see consequences of my individual failures and wrongdoings.
2. Aren't there other ways God could show His love to us? And perhaps he does, so I'm not implying He cannot. Why would God need to kill himself or have Jesus killed to show this to us? It kind of goes back to my "gang mentality" statement I made earlier. For instance, I rather my friend be supportive of positive actions I make and I do so for him than for him to take a bullet for me or get locked up for me so I don't have to go to jail (by the way, I'm law abiding...this is just an example that I've heard gang kids bring up). Paying the price for us is not just, because we need to suffer our own consequences. However, the price we are to pay does not fit the crime, which leads to question 3.
3. Why does there have to be a hell to begin with for God to save us from it? It seems rather extreme for 99.99 percent of the unbelieving population. Perhaps there are a few people who deserve hell (Hitler, for instance), but most of us are good, decent people who make mistakes like everyone else does but has difficulty understanding Christianity. Does that make sense?


Boomygrrl

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Booomygrrl:

One of the problems we have in our culture is that we think that language is precise.

This is because our language has evolved to suit our culture, and therefore for the things about which it has evolved to talk, it can be very precise.

But when you start working with another language (say Latin, or ancient Greek), which developed in a different culture, with different thought patterns, you find there's no direct correspondence between one and the other - a phrase in Greek cannot always be matched precisely by a phrase in English. We borrow words from other languages to meet these deficiencies, such as nirvana.

Why am I prattling on like this?

Well, it's because if our language is only precise for our culture, and becomes imprecise when trying to deal with other cultures. And when we start talking about things of God, who is more alien than say Burmese Buddhism, the language and concepts start to get even more imprecise. We say God is loving, God is a father, Jesus is His Son and so on, but these are approximations, because our language and thought patterns are not up to the job of really describing it. Science has the same problem - it calls light a wave and a particle, but really it's neither, but something we can't get a handle on that behaves a bit like both.

And so it is with the explanations we've got here. They are useful up to a point, but like all metaphors they ultimately have a breaking point, which I think is what you are finding. Again, like all metaphors, you should take them only as far as they are useful. If you find a particular one is completely useless for you, ignore it. They're not absolute truths, but human linguistic and conceptual approximations of truth.

We mustn't let the tail wag the dog. Perhaps the right question is not to ask "Why did Jesus have to die", but rather "If Jesus had to die, what models can I use to help understand what was going on?", but knowing that all such answers are approximate, provisional and subject to re-evaluation.

Christianity has a mystic heart that is all too often missed.

 

[Boomygrrl]

Booomygrrl:

Well, it's because if our language is only precise for our culture, and becomes imprecise when trying to deal with other cultures. And when we start talking about things of God, who is more alien than say Burmese Buddhism, the language and concepts start to get even more imprecise. We say God is loving, God is a father, Jesus is His Son and so on, but these are approximations, because our language and thought patterns are not up to the job of really describing it. Science has the same problem - it calls light a wave and a particle, but really it's neither, but something we can't get a handle on that behaves a bit like both.

And so it is with the explanations we've got here. They are useful up to a point, but like all metaphors they ultimately have a breaking point, which I think is what you are finding. Again, like all metaphors, you should take them only as far as they are useful. If you find a particular one is completely useless for you, ignore it. They're not absolute truths, but human linguistic and conceptual approximations of truth.

We mustn't let the tail wag the dog. Perhaps the right question is not to ask "Why did Jesus have to die", but rather "If Jesus had to die, what models can I use to help understand what was going on?", but knowing that all such answers are approximate, provisional and subject to re-evaluation.

Christianity has a mystic heart that is all too often missed.

I'm a little confused, Karl. Are you saying that the limits of our language conversion (from one language to another, in this instance-- from ancient Greek to English) limits us so much that we cannot even be so sure if Jesus died or if the event did not take place. Maybe it is poetic language being used? Part of me doubts that is what you're trying to say, although I have heard that argument before. Please clarify what you're trying to say, as I'm not so sure I'm following you completely.

Boomygrrl

 

[LegomasterJC]

God required sacrifice of animal blood to pay for the sins of the people in the old covenent. The laws Moses recieved from God. Those sacrifices were supposed to be of the best, unblemeshed animal that the person had. Jesus had to die in order to fulfill prophesy and to cover our sins once and for all since he is the one and only perfect physical being. even the most beutiful calf with no spots and such could not atone for the world's sin. Jesus, having no sin was the perfect sacrifice.
I wouldn't listen to that post by Karl... it is filled with confusion... The truth behind it is that we can't fathom all of God's reasonings for what he wills. You just have to know that he sees all, is not limmited by time, and therefore knows what is best for you and for everyone. heh. not to mention we are his creation and so is everything else. Some people say that that is sadistic that we are like the toys of God but who are they to talk back to their creator. does the clay on the spinning wheel say to the potter, I should be a vase when the potter is making it into a plate.
Hoped that helped. Have faith in God and he will show you the way.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I'm a little confused, Karl. Are you saying that the limits of our language conversion (from one language to another, in this instance-- from ancient Greek to English) limits us so much that we cannot even be so sure if Jesus died or if the event did not take place. Maybe it is poetic language being used? Part of me doubts that is what you're trying to say, although I have heard that argument before. Please clarify what you're trying to say, as I'm not so sure I'm following you completely.

Boomygrrl

No.

I'm saying that our language and human concepts are not adequate to accurately talk about God. Therefore the constructs that we create, e.g.

Jesus died in our place
Jesus paid the penalty for our sins
Jesus' nature unites the divine and human
Jesus was a sacrifice for sin

etc. etc. are not actual statements of fact, but metaphorical statements that are the best we can do in trying to understand what Jesus' death means.

His actual historical death and resurrection are things that our language is perfectly capable of describing, being physical events in our physical sphere of comprehension and experience, and it's not these that I'm talking about - it's the theological statements about the meaning of those events that are by nature imprecise.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I wouldn't listen to that post by Karl... it is filled with confusion...

And you can surely post your opinion without dissing other people, can't you?

 

[Treasure the Questions]

I find Karl's posts are well-thought out. He attempts to understand what God might be telling us by reading the Bible in context. The fact that he appreciates the problems the limitations of language and the complexities of translation pose for us means he's more likely to be right than those who can't see beyond the literal meaning of the words in their favourite translation.

What he's saying here makes a lot of sense to me. I think some of the ideas may come from the thinking of the Eastern Orthodox Church, who share some of the beliefs of the early Christians, which have been changed in later Western Christian thinking.

Karin

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Funny you should say that. I had never heard of the idea of Jesus reconciling us to God by His very nature, but it just came to me one day (near Queens Road in Sheffield IIRC, but I digress)

I tentatively expressed it on another board, only to find it was what the Orthodox have believed for centuries. One Orthodox priest I know (who's perhaps read too much Stephen Donaldson) refers to me as ur-Orthodox.

 

[LegomasterJC]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to "dis" you. I understand what you are saying but I don't think that language is so limited that we can't understand why Jesus died for us. It isn't a metaphor that he died for us (I know you weren't saying that) He died so that the law of the old covenent might be fulfilled so that the new covenent could rightly be made.
Without his death the old covenent would still stand.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to "dis" you. I understand what you are saying but I don't think that language is so limited that we can't understand why Jesus died for us. It isn't a metaphor that he died for us (I know you weren't saying that) He died so that the law of the old covenent might be fulfilled so that the new covenent could rightly be made.
Without his death the old covenent would still stand.

I never said it was. I said that descriptions of exactly how this worked would always be imprecise, because human language (and ability to conceptualise) is not up to the task of describing God or His works exactly.

"My ways are not your ways"

 

[Boomygrrl]

No.

I'm saying that our language and human concepts are not adequate to accurately talk about God. Therefore the constructs that we create, e.g.

Jesus died in our place
Jesus paid the penalty for our sins
Jesus' nature unites the divine and human
Jesus was a sacrifice for sin

etc. etc. are not actual statements of fact, but metaphorical statements that are the best we can do in trying to understand what Jesus' death means.

His actual historical death and resurrection are things that our language is perfectly capable of describing, being physical events in our physical sphere of comprehension and experience, and it's not these that I'm talking about - it's the theological statements about the meaning of those events that are by nature imprecise.

Karl,
Thanks for clarifying for me. So the meaning we put into Jesus' death and resurrection is what you're talking about, correct?
Some people say that the resurrection was not actual, but rather a spiritual resurrection. Not sure if I follow that line of argument, though.
But going back to what you said-- you believe in the actual death and resurrection, correct? You mentioned Jesus had to die, resurrect, and ascend back to heaven as a way to reconciliation. You explained that God had to die and suffer, so He can understand our sufferings...or something along that line. So, was the death more for God to experience? Does an omniscient being need to experience anything to have any empathy for us? Perhaps so, I don't know. Was that the only way God and Man can have a relationship? Maybe on some kind of level I can see that. The people we relate to most are those who can understand and have experienced similar situations we have.
Karl, what is your view about Jesus dying for our sins?


Boomygrrl

 

[Boomygrrl]

Two replies caught my attention as being something I have not thought of before. The two replies responded something like:
Jesus had to die so that we can see the consequences of our sins;
Jesus died to show how much God really loves us, and by just forgiving we don't really grasp the totality of that love (the sacrifice he had to make).
Although it still raises more questions, at least it provides something I can think about.
Questions to these responses:
1. Why do we need to see the consequences of our sins as a collective? I know that in my everyday life I can see consequences of my individual failures and wrongdoings.
2. Aren't there other ways God could show His love to us? And perhaps he does, so I'm not implying He cannot. Why would God need to kill himself or have Jesus killed to show this to us? It kind of goes back to my "gang mentality" statement I made earlier. For instance, I rather my friend be supportive of positive actions I make and I do so for him than for him to take a bullet for me or get locked up for me so I don't have to go to jail (by the way, I'm law abiding...this is just an example that I've heard gang kids bring up). Paying the price for us is not just, because we need to suffer our own consequences. However, the price we are to pay does not fit the crime, which leads to question 3.
3. Why does there have to be a hell to begin with for God to save us from it? It seems rather extreme for 99.99 percent of the unbelieving population. Perhaps there are a few people who deserve hell (Hitler, for instance), but most of us are good, decent people who make mistakes like everyone else does but has difficulty understanding Christianity. Does that make sense?


Boomygrrl

When you have some time, would some of you please respond to this?

Thanks,
Boomygrrl

 

[LegomasterJC]

You know I don't think that Hell is bad because it is an endless pit (falling forever sounds like sky diving without the fear of splatting on the ground) nor because of the extreme heat as we would not have phisical bodies to feal it. This is where I think it is more metaphorical. The reason why hell is so bad is because you will have seen God and been judged not worthy to be with him. So you have to spend eternity without God and that is a terrifying idea indeed. That is why it is described as such suffering.
You ask if there could have been some other way for God to show his love then to die as Jesus.
I can't think of a better way to show your love for somebody than taking all the blame for their sin apon yourself and dieing with it, covering it so that they could be with big Dad.
If you have some siblings or even if you don't... picture a brother or sister who loves their sibling so much that they are willing to take the blame to keep their sibling from being hurt. True this may not seem just, but that is in a human perspective. If you think of it in God's perspective (which is not possible to do fully) but grab a piece of it and think God is so great and we do not compare to him in any sence, so he has compassion and grace on us because He knows that we could not come to Him on our own. So He Provides a way for us to come to him. We Still have to make the choice to cross that bridge though.

 

[Treasure the Questions]

So, was the death more for God to experience? Does an omniscient being need to experience anything to have any empathy for us? Perhaps so, I don't know. Was that the only way God and Man can have a relationship? Maybe on some kind of level I can see that. The people we relate to most are those who can understand and have experienced similar situations we have.
Karl, what is your view about Jesus dying for our sins?

Boomygrrl

Hope you don't mind me adding my opinion here. I would say that it was entirely for man's benefit. It's like God sending us a photo, or even a video instead of a letter. It was a way of really spelling things out for us. God living on earth as a man called Jesus gives us a God we can really relate to. We know he experienced all the joy and pain of human life. We can visualise him far better than a being called God with no physical description.

The way I see it is that Christ died as much to help us develop and become truly whole people, so becoming less sinful and more like God, as "for our sins". That really opens up the whole debate about sin and judgement. However, I think Christ on the cross reminds us that sin is a serious matter, but it also satisfies the human need for sin to be atoned for, so we may be able to truly believe God has forgiven us and perhaps even forgive ourselves.

Hope that hasn't made you more confused

Karin

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Karl,
Thanks for clarifying for me. So the meaning we put into Jesus' death and resurrection is what you're talking about, correct?

Yes, that's exactly it. Anything we say about that, we are saying about God, and such statements can never be precise.

Some people say that the resurrection was not actual, but rather a spiritual resurrection. Not sure if I follow that line of argument, though.

Well, the important thing is, methinks, not that Jesus physically rose from the dead on Easter Sunday, but that He is alive now. That isn't to say He didn't, but to cast some light on how people who aren't so sure He did see it.

But going back to what you said-- you believe in the actual death and resurrection, correct? You mentioned Jesus had to die, resurrect, and ascend back to heaven as a way to reconciliation. You explained that God had to die and suffer, so He can understand our sufferings...or something along that line. So, was the death more for God to experience?

Not just to experience, although that's part of it. He had to go through that in order to be fully human, because death is what happens to humans. He had to be raised to life and return to the Godhead to take our humanity there. There's an odd verse in one of Paul's letters that says we're "seated in heavenly places in Christ" - and we are, because He has taken our humanity there and given it a stake in Godhood.

Does an omniscient being need to experience anything to have any empathy for us? Perhaps so, I don't know. Was that the only way God and Man can have a relationship?

I don't know. But it was the way God chose.

Maybe on some kind of level I can see that. The people we relate to most are those who can understand and have experienced similar situations we have.

The New Testament says that we have a High Priest in heaven who can empathise with us, yes.

Karl, what is your view about Jesus dying for our sins?

It is sin that puts the estrangement between man and God in the first place. Consequently, Jesus does indeed die for those sins, to nullify their effect. And like I've said, I don't totally reject the substitutionary and sacrificial models that people have suggested, I just say they're not the only models, and not those I currently find most helpful. And we haven't really touched on the Christus Victor model...


Boomygrrl[/QUOTE]

 

[Boomygrrl]

Well, the important thing is, methinks, not that Jesus physically rose from the dead on Easter Sunday, but that He is alive now. That isn't to say He didn't, but to cast some light on how people who aren't so sure He did see it...

It is sin that puts the estrangement between man and God in the first place. Consequently, Jesus does indeed die for those sins, to nullify their effect. And like I've said, I don't totally reject the substitutionary and sacrificial models that people have suggested, I just say they're not the only models, and not those I currently find most helpful. And we haven't really touched on the Christus Victor model...
Boomygrrl

[/QUOTE]
Karl, you strike me as being somewhere between a liberal christian and a conservative christian. I find your beliefs more intriguing. Not that the input from everyone else hasn't been helpful, because they have. I guess what I find interesting about your posts is that it is a little bit outside the box. That doesn't make it more right or more wrong. But it makes me have to think more.
I feel like I can ask you this question more than I can ask others as some may find it stupid or offensive because it's just "so obvious" to them, but believe me that I'm sincere in asking...and I think you're the one to kind of get it of where I'm coming from and what my struggles might be...if that makes sense. Anyways, the question is --where is Jesus now? In heaven? Alive in spirit thought the Holy Spirit? Why I ask is because you mentioned Jesus is alive now.

Other question is in response to you saying not totally rejecting the substitutionary or sacrificial models -- do you see yourself as being open minded and wanting to consider many views? You talked about the reconciliation as being the main reason Jesus died and to explain the value of God suffering. However, you also mentioned Jesus died for our sins to nullify their effect. Could you explain more about how this nullifies their effect?


Thanks,
Boomygrrl

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I think I'm a moderate Christian; a lot of people on CF think I'm a raving liberal. It depends where you are and where your centre is, I think, as in politics. To me, John Kerry is a centrist. To a lot of people over in the Republican Safehouse he's virtually a communist...

For me, primarily, Jesus' death nullifies sin because it is sin that estranges us from God. Since Jesus reconciles us to God, this is nullifying the effect of sin.

I wouldn't say that reconciliation is for me the main reason for Jesus' death; it's just the reason that makes most sense to me and to which I can best relate. Certainly I'm always open to more views because I do not believe I have (one can never have) a complete understanding and more perspectives will help to improve the understanding I do have.

As for in what way Jesus is alive now I really can't answer that. I really don't know what heaven is, what God's existence is like, and what Jesus ascending back to the Godhead and existing still as a man in the Father's presence means in any terms that make sense to me. I just have to say that:

(1) He is alive
(2) He is with the Father
(3) He is still present on earth through the Holy Spirit.

Sorry, other than that this is something I'm thinking through at the moment, but really I don't have an awful lot to say. Perhaps it's some more "real" plane of existence even than this universe - I can't say.