Why the crucifixion?

[Wiccan_Child]

Simple question - why did Jesus get crucified? Why not choose another, less gruesome method?

 

[bling]

What you are asking:
What happened with the cross?
“Atonement” which has many theoretical explanations, all having real problems.
What happened is much easier felt then through academic explanation. There are lots of wrong ideas running around:
I had to develop my own understanding, since I could not find anything that did not contradict God, His Love, mercy, justice and God being our Father.
The most popular explanation of atonement seems to be penal substitution (PS), but there are lots of issues:
PS is not fair or just by human standards even if the innocent is willing, so why would God give us a different standard and say His is perfect?
PS makes God out to have the problem needing something in order to forgive people.
PS has God responsible/cause for the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ.
PS loses all the benefit that comes from disciplining/punishing the guilty

If God is Love, how could God have a problem forgiving people? The reason given for “penal substitution” is God cannot forgive us without Jesus being our substitute, but that makes God out to having a problem, lacking in Love someway, and being almost blood thirsty.
What is the relationship between “forgiveness” and punishment of the individual for a transgression? (most theories of atonement like to talk about “sin” needing punishment yet sin cannot be “punished”, only people can be punished.)
Would the perfect parent (the one you would like to be and be like God) see to the punishment or discipline of his/her children in order to have the Love to forgive those children?
The best parent does not “punish” (discipline) their children in order for the parent to have the love to forgive, they punish (discipline with time out or something) their children for the benefit that punishment provides?
God does not have a “problem” forgiving us, but we need to be disciplined somehow in order to obtain the benefits from being disciplined. So God somehow need to see to our discipline for our transgressions without killing us and yet be fair, just and show us His concern/Love.
What are the “benefits” to being fairly punished (disciplined) for our transgressions?
Answers:
Deterrent for the person being disciplined and others aware of the discipline to keep from repeating the action.
It places the value on the transgression (the greater the “punishment” (disciplining) the bigger the transgression), sometimes we do not know how much pain it has caused until we know the “punishment” for the transgression.
It shows fairness and justice, the parent needs to be consistent and we want to know we have a fair and just parent.
It is a way to put the transgression behind us, since we have done the time for the crime.
It also should strength and improves the relationship between the parent and the child.
We know wonderful parent see to the discipline of the children they Love, so if our parents do not discipline (punish) us, we should rightfully question their love/concern for us.
Let me ask you a few questions:
1. How hard and why was it hard for God to allow Christ to do what he did on the cross?
2. Christ is not standing in for me, but Christ is going to the cross because I did not keep from sinning, It is my fault Christ is allowing Himself to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, so I can personally be tortured for my sinning, not physically tortured like He was, but to be tortured similar to the torture God went through watching His Son. Are there something worse than your own death?
3. As with those in the crowd (Act 2:37) should I experience a death blow to my heart from realizing what I have done, fully coming to the realization that my greatest “Love” has undergone torture, humiliation and murder, because of my sinning? Can we also say to the degree I “Love” Christ will be the degree to which I suffer and could that suffering be as great as His suffering?
4. The realization of what I cause Christ to willingly do for me on the cross is debilitating and makes me want to die, but there is also unbelievable Love shown from both God the Father and Christ that is uplifting and makes me want to live for them. So should we have mixed feelings about remembering what happened on the cross?
5. We also see how the cross does not work for the nonbeliever, since they would not experience any punishment in this life from Christ going to the cross. Their fair/just punishment will thus come later with hell. Does this explains how Christ going to the cross can be both for everyone and yet not everyone?
6. The bottom line is: God sees to the fair discipline of the guilty, we receive all the benefits of being disciplined, we realize what a unbelievable huge debt sin has created and thus when God does forgive us; we will have an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love) automatically, since Christ has taught us: “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”. Is this “Love” what we are after?
7. If you do not experience the discipline for your transgressions, is hard to get the complete feeling you have truly been forgiven (like a child that has not been punished for a transgression)?

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 it is to later and besides; there is really no other way for you to be punished and live.

One of the questions that comes up with my theory of atonement is:

“How does a little heart ping equal a person spending eternity in hell?”
Answer:
1. It is not a little heart ping, but the worst thing a person can experience here on earth and continue to live.
2. Where does the Bible really teach those in hell have an eternal existence?
3. Does God’s discipline of His repentant child have to be “equal” to the person going to hell to be fair? Does the repentant rebellious disobedient child of an wonderful earthly parent need to “pay” the full price for in his fair/just discipline (can he really repay the cost for the antic he intentionally destroyed?)
4. Those in hell are guilty of the offence of not humbling themselves enough to trust God and repent, so they have that added offence.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Simple question - why did Jesus get crucified? Why not choose another, less gruesome method?

Crucifixion was Rome's way of dealing with the worst of the worst--insurgents and rebels. There was no honor, no glory in crucifixion.

Jesus doesn't die a noble death, but an ugly, dishonorable death. Jesus is rejected, cast aside, and as such stands with the least of the least. St. Paul even quotes Deuteronomy that says "Cursed is one that hangs on a tree" to speak of Jesus as having died a cursed death, a death absolutely devoid of any nobility and honor.

But it is in being cursed that comes blessing, in being counted among the least that is true greatness.

Jesus' teaching of the upside-down nature of God's kingdom is laid bare in His own suffering and dying.

The kingdom's highest diadem is the crown of thorns worn by the crucified Son of God; who becoming the least of all is truly greatest, the King who serves and suffers.

Jesus takes the Roman instrument of torture and terror, inverts it to become the instrument of defeat and triumph over and against the deathly powers of this world--sin, death, hell, and the devil--by His rising again. What the world intends for evil, Jesus will turn to good. What the world intends to destroy, Jesus will redeem and raise up. The powers of this dead, dying, sinful world are overthrown by Jesus who overcomes them by suffering them and rising from the dead; and in Him there is hope, promise, that this goes out to all. Good news announced, and bringing that reality to the world suffering and dying under the weight of that suffering and dying.

Borne out from Jesus is a new world, and God is going to bring about this new world, and He wants us to be part of that world and He is doing that by taking us, and making us members, partakers of this Jesus.

St. Paul puts it thusly:

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[1watchman]

That is some good explanation of the crucifixion. There was a great clamor for His death by many in power ---especially the Jewish leaders who saw Him as a threat to their religion and privilege as elite among others. It is noteworthy that the Roman officer at the scene confessed that it appeared Jesus was a righteous man.

 

[football5680]

Crucifixion was the punishment the Roman Empire used at that time to intimidate and discourage anybody who would think about rebelling against them. The point was not simply just killing the individual because there are much easier and quicker ways to do that so even if they didn't crucify him, it would have been another brutal punishment with the same goal in mind.

 

[Harry3142]

Both Jews and Gentiles were complicit in Jesus' death. If the Jews had simply taken him to a place where they could stone him, then his death could have been blamed solely on them. But since both Jews and Gentiles took an active part in his death through his being crucified, the entire world became equally liable for that death. And paradoxically, that culminated in both Jews and Gentiles also benefiting equally for his conquering death via his resurrection.

 

[1watchman]

Good point, Harry; and, the Jews were especially anxious to get rid of Him. We are all guilty of rejection of the Lord, and thus the judgment of God against the whole world. Thank God for His "great salvation" for all mankind if they will receive it in Jesus, the Christ of God.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ah, I think everyone's misunderstood what I meant (which is my fault for being ambiguous with the OP).

What I meant to ask was, why did God choose blood sacrifice as the method of salvation? Why did he decide that the best way to offer salvation to humans is to come down to Earth as a man, and be tortured and crucified? Why not a less gruesome method? Why didn't he, say, snap his fingers and say "You're forgiven!"?

 

[oi_antz]

Ah, I think everyone's misunderstood what I meant (which is my fault for being ambiguous with the OP).

What I meant to ask was, why did God choose blood sacrifice as the method of salvation? Why did he decide that the best way to offer salvation to humans is to come down to Earth as a man, and be tortured and crucified? Why not a less gruesome method? Why didn't he, say, snap his fingers and say "You're forgiven!"?

Is that not what He does? Remember John 15:22. It seems that becoming human was necessary for salvation. It seems that the Jews who rejected Him really wanted to put their anger on Him. What do you think would have been a better decision for Him to make at which time? Do you think it would have achieved the same result?

 

[bling]

Ah, I think everyone's misunderstood what I meant (which is my fault for being ambiguous with the OP).

What I meant to ask was, why did God choose blood sacrifice as the method of salvation? Why did he decide that the best way to offer salvation to humans is to come down to Earth as a man, and be tortured and crucified? Why not a less gruesome method? Why didn't he, say, snap his fingers and say "You're forgiven!"?

That is included in my post 2.

 

[Arcangl86]

There are multiple theories to the Atonement. Most people agree that Christ's death was necessary, but not for the same reason. The most common understanding in the West is that God is merciful but just. Humanity is fallen and deserves death, but God does not desire that of us. So an He takes our place, embodying both the forgiveness of God, but also his divine justice, for sin is still punished.

Then there is the older model sometimes known as Christus Victor which states that the only way that God could save us men from death was to become one of us, and conquer death through experiencing it.

I personally hold with what I have heard referred to as the moral influence view. Christ came to show us a better way, how to be like God. Allowing himself to killed showed perfect obedience to God, and his resurrection showed that even death can not defeat the love of God. I will admit, most of it is as clear as mud.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There are multiple theories to the Atonement. Most people agree that Christ's death was necessary, but not for the same reason.

The problem with necessity is that we're talking about an all-powerful deity - there is literally nothing that is necessary. There are no rules or limits as to what God can or cannot do, except the laws of logic (and even then, some God can do the illogical). Therefore, it cannot be said that Christ's death was necessary, as God de dicto necessarily must have alternative methods to accomplish his goals.

The most common understanding in the West is that God is merciful but just. Humanity is fallen and deserves death, but God does not desire that of us. So an He takes our place, embodying both the forgiveness of God, but also his divine justice, for sin is still punished.

Is it justice if punishment is dealt to a proxy? I'm not aware of any court in the West (or, indeed, the entire world) that punishes proxies instead of those found guilty.

Then there is the older model sometimes known as Christus Victor which states that the only way that God could save us men from death was to become one of us, and conquer death through experiencing it.

This falls under my first point - "The only way that God could do X..." is not a consistent statement.

I personally hold with what I have heard referred to as the moral influence view. Christ came to show us a better way, how to be like God. Allowing himself to killed showed perfect obedience to God, and his resurrection showed that even death can not defeat the love of God. I will admit, most of it is as clear as mud.

Your honesty is refreshing

 

[Arcangl86]

The necessity thing goes back to God being a just God. He creates certain rules, and He chooses to work within them. And on some aspects, it's what we need, not what God needs. For instance, it's not necessary for a parent to feed his or her child. Yet it is necessary for that child to be fed for him or her to survive. The Moral Influence model, which think can also work with other models as well, is about us becoming better, becoming like God. God won't force us to be good, because that would be a violation of the precious gift he gave us when we were granted free will.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ah, I think everyone's misunderstood what I meant (which is my fault for being ambiguous with the OP).

What I meant to ask was, why did God choose blood sacrifice as the method of salvation? Why did he decide that the best way to offer salvation to humans is to come down to Earth as a man, and be tortured and crucified? Why not a less gruesome method? Why didn't he, say, snap his fingers and say "You're forgiven!"?

I don't believe God chose "blood sacrifice". I don't believe that's what the Cross is about.

I would also agree with you that if all that we needed was pardon, God is free to forgive whenever and however He sees fit (the Old Testament is filled with examples of Divine mercy and forgiveness of sin). Indeed, if the only issue were pardon, then the Cross might seem excessive.

But as to why I believe the Cross was necessary (for us, not God) I think my previous post still addresses this.

It is God's union with humanity and suffering in the Person of Jesus, the Incarnate Logos; to overcome and destroy the powers of sin and death, unite us to Himself, and deliver us into Himself and life everlasting.

Could God have done this another way--sure, why not. But this is the method God did choose, and the Cross remains an upside-down symbol and reminder of God's victory over death and violence for the sake of the world, who by Cross takes hold of the world in love to redeem it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The necessity thing goes back to God being a just God. He creates certain rules, and He chooses to work within them.

Then that's his business, and I want no part in it.

And on some aspects, it's what we need, not what God needs. For instance, it's not necessary for a parent to feed his or her child. Yet it is necessary for that child to be fed for him or her to survive. The Moral Influence model, which think can also work with other models as well, is about us becoming better, becoming like God. God won't force us to be good, because that would be a violation of the precious gift he gave us when we were granted free will.

Which would be all well and good... except that's not the case. In my signature I link to a post I made about a year ago, where I explained my problem with the concept of 'free will' - namely, that our choice is not free.

"Suppose a man is hung up to a gallows, balancing on the trapdoor. The door will open after a timer counts down to 'zero'. Nearby sits another man, the executioner, idly reading a magazine. The executioner states that he'll let the man down if, and only if, the man falls in love with him. Otherwise, the executioner will do nothing and the man will die when the timer is up.

Is this a free choice? Obviously not, and only a sociopath would think otherwise. Not only is the threat of a painful death biasing the man's decisions, it's also quite impossible to simply flick a mental switch and 'be' in love with someone (that's why we call it falling in love - it's not a decision or choice).

Is the executioner innocent of the man's ultimate fate? Again, obviously not: the executioner has created an arbitrary set of rules that does technically provide an 'out' for the man, but that doesn't change the fact that the executioner could, if he saw fit, release the man at a moment's notice. Moreover, since the man is in the gallows by the fault of the executioner, the executioner is once again at a fault."
​

This is my own analogy for the situation Christianity presents after much debating with Christians. It incorporates the element of choice, the fact that God doesn't send us to Hell he simply lets us go to Hell, etc. The point of it is, the choice we're being asked to make is not free. Our choice is entirely biased when we're being threatened with eternal suffering vs. eternal paradise! As well, the choice we have to make isn't even one that can be made! We don't possess switches in our heads that can be flipped on a whim to make us suddenly love someone.

So, no, I disagree that God doesn't want to interfere with free will, given that the entire afterlife system (which he, in his omnipotence and omniscience, must necessarily have planned to the last detail) is biased and unjust.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't believe God chose "blood sacrifice". I don't believe that's what the Cross is about.

Isn't the whole point that the OT was replete with blood sacrifices as a stop-gap until the big main blood sacrifice of Christ, after which his blood washes away our sins? A bloody death, conquering death, etc, seems to be central to the whole thing.

I would also agree with you that if all that we needed was pardon, God is free to forgive whenever and however He sees fit (the Old Testament is filled with examples of Divine mercy and forgiveness of sin). Indeed, if the only issue were pardon, then the Cross might seem excessive.

But as to why I believe the Cross was necessary (for us, not God) I think my previous post still addresses this.

It is God's union with humanity and suffering in the Person of Jesus, the Incarnate Logos; to overcome and destroy the powers of sin and death, unite us to Himself, and deliver us into Himself and life everlasting.

Could God have done this another way--sure, why not. But this is the method God did choose, and the Cross remains an upside-down symbol and reminder of God's victory over death and violence for the sake of the world, who by Cross takes hold of the world in love to redeem it.

-CryptoLutheran

So Jesus suffered and died... because it makes a nifty metaphor?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Isn't the whole point that the OT was replete with blood sacrifices as a stop-gap until the big main blood sacrifice of Christ, after which his blood washes away our sins? A bloody death, conquering death, etc, seems to be central to the whole thing.

The ritual offerings are understood in Christianity as being a typology of Christ; but the point isn't that God needs blood, and thus there were these temporary band-aids until Jesus. But rather they point to the greater reality of a definitive sacrifice, namely Jesus.

But it's not about blood satisfying something, but about the sacrificial reality, the victimhood of Jesus, as One who is weighed down beneath the weight of shame, suffering, violence, and death. Not to appease a blood-hungry god, but to be the One who stands in the place of death and suffering. Of One laying down His life for others, namely you and me.

So Jesus suffered and died... because it makes a nifty metaphor?

No. Jesus suffered and died to render death and suffering powerless, to rescue the world from these, by taking them into Himself, conquering them by His rising from the dead in order that you, me, the whole world might be restored, redeemed, and brought into a new world, a new life, wrought through Him; that future reality is yet to come, and is received now only as a promise, a pledge, apprehended through faith.

That's not a metaphor, that is what has actually transpired in the Person of Jesus. In the death of Jesus was the death of the whole world, and in the resurrection of Jesus was the resurrection of the whole world; we believe this to be true and a mystery, to be actualized one day in the future for all: namely at His return, the resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgment, and the restoration of all things.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[softart]

Couldn't he have defeated death without dying? I think that's the central issue, cross or no cross.

 

[sunshineforJesus]

If Jesus hadn't died for us we wouldn't be set free from our sins.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Couldn't he have defeated death without dying? I think that's the central issue, cross or no cross.

Again, God could snap His proverbial fingers and make death go away. But that, apparently, isn't how He saw it best to accomplish this. Instead God became man, took part in the totality of our humanity--and that means death--in order to render death powerless and lift humanity up out from death and into the freedom of life in God.

St. Athanasius put it best I think, "God became man so that man might become God." That is, in taking our human nature upon Himself God has redeemed it, healed it, restored it, unbound and dismantled the disobedience of Adam and all its consequences; and in so doing in Him we are made partakers of the Divine nature, partakers and sharers in God, in the life of God.

The dismantling of death by Christ's death comes through God's participation in our humanity in Christ; who being man becomes one with all men, and in dying dies every death, and in rising raises all up--in order that you and I might likewise share in His resurrection, His victory, and His divinity by becoming children of God, heirs of God with Christ.

What should be noticed here is that the Atonement, the event of the Cross, isn't something one can easily condense into a neat sound byte; and many different theories of the Atonement all speak to various dimensions of the Cross and its significance.

Here I've addressed Recapitulation Theory and Theosis. Earlier I addressed Christus Victory theory. There is also Satisfaction Theory--that Christ satisfies justice (this is the theory most people in the West are familiar with, especially in its Penal Substitution form, which I do not subscribe to).

These address several dimensions:

1) By His death and resurrection Jesus justifies sinners, setting them right before God, as they have in Him forgiveness of all sin, and the cloak of His righteousness over them, granted them as God's free gift through faith, to stand just before Him and be declared right on the Final Day.

2) By His death and resurrection Jesus has destroyed the very power of sin and death, hell, and the devil by taking upon Himself the sins of the world, dying His death, descending into hell, and binding the devil as a captive. In so doing He looses the binds of Hell upon mankind in Himself, and in Him there is victory over those very same.

3) By His death and resurrection Jesus has become the utmost, the chief victim, of man's inhumanity to man; and as truly innocent victim, indeed, the Victim, He stands in solidarity with all victims, with all suffering, with all the dead. And He vindicates them, by His death and resurrection He sets the powers of this world upon their head and shows them forth as a spectacle, and utterly and truly powerless. Violence will not last, it could not silence Him, Empire will not last, it could not conquer Him. Instead He shows forth the truth of God's kingdom as where the least is greatest, where swords are beaten into a plowshares, and man knows no longer the art of war.

4) By His death and resurrection Jesus undoes the disobedience of Adam, having become a second Adam, whose obedience takes hold of human nature and sets it toward the right. Jesus recapitulates human life and presents it as obedience in contrast to Adam's disobedience, and thus restores it, heals it, and presents it as new before God and in Him this new humanity--this new man--is ours through faith by the promise of God, resurrection from the dead on the Last Day.

5) The Incarnation sets forth the condescension of God into humanity, to become what we are, to join in what we are and assume it for Himself; in order that He could take us with Himself into the grave and raise us up with Him, so that we could, in Him, share in what He ever was from all eternity--God. To share thus in Him God's life, to make us true image-bearers of God, to be a creature that shines and reflect who and what God is. To bear in ourselves His own Divine Glory.

These are all critical and essential dimensions of what the Cross means. And the above is hardly comprehensive. We could speak also how Christ has taken and brought together all people, wiping away the wall of separation that exists, ("For there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free..."). And, yes, Moral Influence theory, in that the Cross shows forth what it means to be a citizen of God's kingdom; it means to be a cross-bearing servant to our neighbor, to present ourselves lowly servants acting in love toward all people, and this we have from our Lord and King and highest Example, Jesus Christ, who by Cross is the absolute portrait of what God's kingdom looks like. We have also, the reality that Christ as God's full revelation of Himself shows us who God truly is and what God is truly like, how God sees and understands Himself. Namely, that the true heart of God is One of self-surrender, self-emptying love and mercy for all. The Cross therefore shows the Fatherly heart of God, who the Father is as the One who pours Himself out in love to the Son, and the Son's reciprocal pouring out in obedience to the Father that it's this same Son who comes down, as flesh, as Jesus, to be that pure and perfect Icon, that Image, of that Triune love. Those are also all dimensions of the Cross.

-CryptoLutheran