Why did Jesus need to die?

[doubtingmerle]

Why did Jesus need to die?

Could God forgive us without having his Son die? If so, why didn't he do it? If not, is he really all-powerful?

 

[Faulty]

That's sort of like asking why a judge can't just forgive the guilty for their crimes without imposing punishment.

God is just and you are demanding He be either unjust or weak. It doesn't work that way. God is just and all-powerful and merciful. For that reason, Jesus died to satisfy the justice of God on your behalf, because of your sins, you could not do it yourself.

Now if God needed to humble Himself and take the form of man so He could endure the wrath of the Father on our behalf, then how much more are we deserving punishment if we know this clearly and still reject it?

 

[steve_bakr]

Why did Jesus need to die?

Could God forgive us without having his Son die? If so, why didn't he do it? If not, is he really all-powerful?

You know that, within the Jewish system, a sacrifice of an unblemished lamb is offered for the forgiveness of sin. Well,.Jesus.came and offered himself up as an unblemished (without sin) sacrifice for you and me.

 

[Tenorikuma]

Ah yes, good old penal substitutionary atonement theory. Just as medieval and just as absurdly unjust as it sounds.

The early church prior to St. Anselm tended to believe in a Christus Victor model, in which Jesus died to conquer sin and death, rather than penal atonement, which portrays God as a wrathful, demented being who had to kill an innocent person to satiate his bloodlust.

 

[2thePoint]

Ah yes, good old penal substitutionary atonement theory. Just as medieval and just as absurdly unjust as it sounds.

The early church prior to St. Anselm tended to believe in a Christus Victor model, in which Jesus died to conquer sin and death, rather than penal atonement, which portrays God as a wrathful, demented being who had to kill an innocent person to satiate his bloodlust.

Ah yes, the false dilemma fallacy, as well as "appeal to authority", combined with ad hominem (well, in this case, ad deity).

I offer instead this explanation, and would add that there is more going on in this whole cosmic chess game than we know.

 

[cerad]

That's sort of like asking why a judge can't just forgive the guilty for their crimes without imposing punishment.

Ok. I'll bite. Why can't a judge can't just forgive the guilty for their crimes without imposing punishment.?

God is just and you are demanding He be either unjust or weak.

Well, he was too weak to protect his own son from execution. As far as I can tell, God didn't even file an appeal.

 

[steve_bakr]

Ah yes, good old penal substitutionary atonement theory. Just as medieval and just as absurdly unjust as it sounds.

The early church prior to St. Anselm tended to believe in a Christus Victor model, in which Jesus died to conquer sin and death, rather than penal atonement, which portrays God as a wrathful, demented being who had to kill an innocent person to satiate his bloodlust.

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is indeed a victory over death. As Paul says that Jesus resurrected is the firstborn of a new creation and through.him we can be resurrected into his likeness.

 

[steve_bakr]

Ok. I'll bite. Why can't a judge can't just forgive the guilty for their crimes without imposing punishment.?

Well, he was too weak to protect his own son from execution. As far as I can tell, God didn't even file an appeal.

Christ resurrected has the power to transform us and the entire universe.

 

[cerad]

Christ resurrected has the power to transform us and the entire universe.

So he gained a new power? Thought Christ was God and God was already all powerful?

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Why did Jesus need to die?

Could God forgive us without having his Son die? If so, why didn't he do it? If not, is he really all-powerful?

Yes, of course God could and can forgive us without Christ dying. In fact He did it all the time.

Jesus didn't die in order that God could have an excuse to forgive us.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bling]

Yes, God can easily forgive sin without Christ going to the cross, but then we would miss out on the benefits that come from being disciplined (punished). So Christ is going to the cross for our sake and not for God’s issue with sin.

There is a way for God to be both just and merciful, but you are going to have to think about this.

Yes, 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’s Love compelled God to make beings that could Love like He Loves, for the sake of those that would Love like He Loves. To have this Godly type Love would mean we had the most powerful force in all universes compelling even God to do all he does.

Everything God does is to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective and that everything incudes 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.


The only way this works fairly and justly is if I suffer for my transgression in proportion to the suffering the everyone else will suffer for their transgressions and it would help if that pain was as close to the offence as possible (as a Good parent would see to ).

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.

God made a huge sacrifice to make man in the first place, but God’s Love compelled Him to make beings that could Love like He Loves for the sake of those that would love like He loves, but that also means many that he loved and created would not accept God’s gift and would have no place to go but only become part of the sacrifice needed to help others accept the gift.


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.

The “debt” is so high because we (willing humans) need it to be extremely high. That way when we are forgiven of this debt we are forgiven much. “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…” remember the objective is that Love.

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, 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.


That is my introduction.


It makes perfect sense that Christ’s crucifixion is for man and not to God.

Everything hinges on the objective with man’s objective being obtaining Godly type Love so we can love with all we have (like God). This Love cannot just be programmed into us or it would be a robotic type Love and god will not force it on us (like some shoot gun wedding). We have to accept the Love as a free undeserving and unconditional gift (Charity). The only way possible for us to humbly accept such great charity is through accepting God’s forgiveness, if we feel a great enough need humbly accept forgiveness (charity/mercy/grace/Love).


Our situation is similar to the parable I wrote but not fully the same. We have sinned against God (it is like in the story of the prodigal son we have said “we wish you were dead so we could have our inheritance”. God very much wants to forgive us, but we are not about to accept His charity (and that is what it would be). The only way we will accept charity is if and when we really need it and even then there would have to be no other way and we still might not swallow our pride. If we can minimize our transgressions in our own minds we could live with it better, make them insignificant, and we might be able to do a little something to make up for them (keeping our pride in tack).

Sin thus needs to be shown as a huge debt that burdens us with no way to pay even a small part of it back. Christ volunteers for another way to see to our punishment without minimizing sin and allowing us to get the benefits of being punished (disciplined) in this life, but it requires tremendous Love on God’s and Christ’s part. Christ remains perfect and innocent all his life so he has no sin to pay for, he accepts torture and punishment equivalent to the punishment of my transgression (if I did not, even today, sin my entire life and fulfilled my objective of obtaining Godly type Love there would be “another way” for humans to fulfill their objective and Christ would not have had to go to the cross [so in some ways I am personally responsible for him going to the cross]). My punishment is like that of the old man in my parable, in that I am responsible for my innocent older brother Christ going to the cross.

God is not punishing Christ instead of me, but is allowing out of Love wicked men to punish a willing Christ so I can obtain the benefits of the punishment that is provides for me as the one Christ is suffering because of. Those benefits include: not wanting to sin again, knowing how bad sin really is, feeling I have been punished and nothing else awaits me, knowing that I am a child (parents see to the discipline of their children), knowing the pain I will go through does not compare to his, and really feeling Loved.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

As someone who does not subscribe to Penal Substitution theory, and Satisfaction theory in general, I am going to definitely have a different position than a few others.

It was briefly mentioned earlier, but it's true, prior to St. Anselm who published a work titled Cur Deus Homo? in which he tackles the issue of why God had to become human from a theological and philosophical angle. In that work Anselm presents a theory of Atonement--that is, a systematic meaning of how Christ and in particular His death reconciles us to God--which has become foundational for the Western Church for the last thousand years.

In Anselm's theory God, because He's God, is afforded the greatest honor possible. However, man, as God's subjects, have offended this honor by their sin. Thus man owes an honor debt to God, a debt man cannot afford. Thus only someone as honorable and equal with God can pay that debt, thereby satisfying God's kingly and divine honor. Thus Jesus, who being God becomes man and by His death on the cross and perfect obedience to God satisfies that great debt. God's honor is satisfied, and it was paid on our behalf by a man (Jesus) and it was satisfactory because Jesus is God and equal with God. This is why it is known as "Satisfaction Theory".

A little bit later St. Thomas Aquinas takes up Anselm's material, however Thomas gives it his own Thomistic spin. Rather than God's honor being offended, it is instead God's justice. By our win we have grieved God's justice and that justice must be satisfied; but again man cannot satisfy God's justice and thus Christ must satisfy it on our behalf.

It is this, like other elements of Thomistic theology and philosophy, that became the dominant views of Medieval Catholicism.

In the 16th century the Protestant Reformation burst forth like a wildfire across Europe. While much of Scholastic philosophy and theology was scrutinized, challenged and often rejected, the Reformers generally accepted Satisfaction Theory without much trouble.

Under Calvin and Reformed theologians Thomistic Satisfaction theory became Penal Substitution. Christ becomes our penal or legal substitute, suffering the wrath and rage of God as demanded by Divine Justice due to the great offense of sin.

Penal Substitution is largely embraced throughout by Protestant groups of all stripes and is received consistently regardless of other splintering, fracturing or general development of new denominations in the following centuries.

In reaction against German/European Liberalism it became one of the Fundamentals of the Fundamentalist movement of the 1900s, and through Fundamentalism the Neo-Evangelicalism of the 1940s and 50's and onward up until the present day.

However, keep in mind, that it all descends ultimately from the Medieval theology and philosophy of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas (though I am by no means attacking either men here or even Scholasticism in general).

I think we are fortunate, however, today to live at a time when the Western Christianity has become much more aware of the Eastern theological tradition. The theology, practices and saints of the Christian East are now widely available to Western theologians and students of theology; as a result a number of Western theological assumptions have been and are being critiqued by many here in the West: Mainline Protestants, Evangelicals and Catholics alike.

On the topic of the Atonement, an influential book was written by a Lutheran theologian a number of years ago, by Gustav Aulen. In his book, Christus Victor, he critiques the "Latin view" (i.e. Satisfaction theory) and presents a sort of synthesis of several older perspectives on the Atonement and which are still held by Christians of the Eastern theological tradition (e.g. Eastern Orthodox) which he refers to as the "classical view". This synthesis of the Recapitulation and Ransom theories held by the ancient Church and the East today has the same name as the title of his book is known as Christus Victory theory. In essence, rather than Christ coming in order to be a penal substitute or pay a debt owed to God, the purpose of Christ coming was to vanquish the powers of sin, death and the devil; and that the reconciliation is in God becoming human in Jesus, and restoring to humanity all that was lost by the Fall. That is to say, in Christ God restores humanity to perfect communion with Himself, not only restoring and fixing human nature in Jesus, but glorifying it, deifying it; and that by our union to and with Jesus we share in Christ's own humanity, Christ's own glory, Christ's own victory and power and communion with God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bling]

As someone who does not subscribe to Penal Substitution theory, and Satisfaction theory in general, I am going to definitely have a different position than a few others.

I also do not agree with those ideas, but do not agree with your alternative either. Could you look at my post 11 and show me where I go astray?

 

[.Iona.]

Well, he was too weak to protect his own son from execution. As far as I can tell, God didn't even file an appeal.

Well, if that is what you believe then you clearly do now know the reason of Jesus at all.

God came down in human form to die instead of us. It's all part of His plan, being weak or not being able to save His Son doesn't even come into it - it's nothing to do with it at all.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That's sort of like asking why a judge can't just forgive the guilty for their crimes without imposing punishment.

Uh no, its sort of like asking why a judge can't forgive a criminal unless the judge first sentences another man.

God is just and you are demanding He be either unjust or weak. It doesn't work that way. God is just and all-powerful and merciful. For that reason, Jesus died to satisfy the justice of God on your behalf, because of your sins, you could not do it yourself.

And if a murder is committed in Texas, and the judge picks a person at random to die for the crime, is that justice?

It seems to me that, for punishment to be just, it must be applied to the person that did the crime.

Can you understand why some of us think that killing an innocent man is not justice?

 

[seashale76]

Why did Jesus need to die?

Could God forgive us without having his Son die? If so, why didn't he do it? If not, is he really all-powerful?

Christus Victor has already been mentioned- and this is the Orthodox view. However, I'd like to present some extra reasoning as to 'Why Christ?' for you to consider. It boils down to the essence and energies of God.

(A copy-paste from a recent post of mine that hopefully helps to answer the question.) In the Orthodox Church- we apply something called apophatic theology (negative theology)- to describe God by saying what God isn't instead of what God is. We do this because we believe that God's essence is unknowable and ineffable. However, we do believe that we can participate in God's energies.

Examples of apophatic theology:
No one has seen or can see God (John 1:18).
He lives in unapproachable light (1 Tim. 6:16).
His ways are unsearchable and unfathomable (Job 11:7-8; Romans 11:33-36).

Because of this- in order for us to participate in the energies of God/attain salvation- we need Christ (very God of very God- both fully God and fully man). We can know God via the person of Christ. It is a pious opinion that even had sin not entered the world, we still would have need of Christ, as we believe that Adam and Eve (humanity) were not born in a state of theosis.

Salvation happened in the past. Via the incarnation (specifically the hypostatic union), it became possible for us to attain theosis. To one in the Church (a Christian), we are being saved. If we persevere, we will be saved in the future. Those in the Church are part of the body of Christ and have the Holy Trinity living in them. Through the life of the Church, the Holy Mysteries, and the power of the Holy Spirit, we are empowered to do good works. Anyone living out their life in the Church will be changed/transfigured. This is only possible through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

We must daily pick up our cross and follow Him. Christ’s suffering death on the cross and resurrection made it possible for us to now have a way through suffering and a way to reconcile ourselves to God (abolishing sin and death) through his human nature. Christ’s ultimate act of suffering love gives us His saving companionship and grace. We can literally be baptized into Christ as part of His body (Church/Israel). Through our life in the Church, the ultimate hospital for sinners, we hope to one day attain theosis and participate in the divine energies of God.

 

[drich0150]

Why did Jesus need to die?

Righteousness Demanded it.

Could God forgive us without having his Son die?

No

why he do it?

It was the will of the Father

If not, is he really all-powerful?

Above all else God is righteous. Righteousness demand a sacrifice for sin.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is indeed a victory over death. As Paul says that Jesus resurrected is the firstborn of a new creation and through.him we can be resurrected into his likeness.

Does this even address the question? The question is why Jesus had to die.

Or was it all a publicity act? Was he just dying so he could prove he could resurrect?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Above all else God is righteous. Righteousness demand a sacrifice for sin.

And righteousness doesn't care who is being sacrificed, just so long as somebody is sacrificed?

So it really doesn't matter if we find the guilty party in a murder trial? Is righteousness satisfied as long as somebody is killed in retribution?

In my view, killing an innocent person is not a righteousness act. Can you understand why some of us think it is not righteous to allow an innocent man to die for something he did not do?

 

[doubtingmerle]

As someone who does not subscribe to Penal Substitution theory, and Satisfaction theory in general, I am going to definitely have a different position than a few others.

Oh, good. Because I was having a hard time understanding the claim that it does not matter if the guilty party or an innocent party is punished, just so long as somebody is punished.

In essence, rather than Christ coming in order to be a penal substitute or pay a debt owed to God, the purpose of Christ coming was to vanquish the powers of sin, death and the devil; and that the reconciliation is in God becoming human in Jesus, and restoring to humanity all that was lost by the Fall. That is to say, in Christ God restores humanity to perfect communion with Himself, not only restoring and fixing human nature in Jesus, but glorifying it, deifying it; and that by our union to and with Jesus we share in Christ's own humanity, Christ's own glory, Christ's own victory and power and communion with God.

Thanks, but this doesn't seem to resolve it. It is merely a statement that Christ had to come to provide reconciliation. Couldn't God have done it another way?

But even if we decide that Christ had to come, as you write, does that prove he had to die? Why couldn't he just come, have a nice visit, and then go home? Would that have been sufficient?