Why was Jesus crucified?

[ConsiderableSpeck]

I'd like very much to hear your various opinions on the purpose of the crucifixion. Which atonement theory do you subscribe to? Penal Substitution, Satisfaction, Ransom, Christus Victor, Moral, something else entirely? Why?

TIA,
Speck

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[ConsiderableSpeck]

John 3:14-15 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

The reason why God caused the fall of man was because He wanted to die for us to demonstrate His love for us and so that we would trust in Him while living in a fallen world. The fall of man was a test.

Thank you for your response. I'm not quite clear on your meaning ... Could you explain a little more what you mean by saying Jesus died "for" us?

And you are saying the fall was a test for whom and in what regard?

Speck

 

[ebia]

All of the above are models - attempts to think through the crucifixion. They shouldn't be mistaken for the thing they attempt to explain, and they are all necessarly partial; each useful in its own way and each potentially misleading if its thought to be the whole picture. If I had to pick one I would pick Christus Victor, but I don't.

It's also worth noting that when Jesus wanted to explain his death to his closest friends he didn't give them a theory at all - he gave them an action, a meal.

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

John 3:14-15 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

The reason why God caused the fall of man was because He wanted to die for us to demonstrate His love for us and so that we would trust in Him while living in a fallen world. The fall of man was a test.

Not sure about your theology there my freind, God never wanted us to fall (stray from him). He gave us life and free will and like many people now and througout all the ages we reject God and his commandments. Jesus was necessary to bridge that detachment caused by the first adam, Jesus was necessary because God would only be pleased with the sacrifice of a spotless person (without sin), so who better than himself in the form of his only begotten son.

I suggest you and the OP read John Stotts "The Cross of Christ".

 

[ConsiderableSpeck]

All of the above are models - attempts to think through the crucifixion. They shouldn't be mistaken for the thing they attempt to explain, and they are all necessarly partial; each useful in its own way and each potentially misleading if its thought to be the whole picture. If I had to pick one I would pick Christus Victor, but I don't.

Well, I'm trying to understand how the crucifixion explains God. Does it point to a violently angry God, demanding restitution? Was the crucifixion required to satisfy God's blood lust? Or was it necessary to satisfy ours? Or something else completely? It's an important question to me.

It's also worth noting that when Jesus wanted to explain his death to his closest friends he didn't give them a theory at all - he gave them an action, a meal.

Something to partake of?

 

[ConsiderableSpeck]

Not sure about your theology there my freind, God never wanted us to fall (stray from him). He gave us life and free will and like many people now and througout all the ages we reject God and his commandments. Jesus was necessary to bridge that detachment caused by the first adam, Jesus was necessary because God would only be pleased with the sacrifice of a spotless person (without sin), so who better than himself in the form of his only begotten son.

If God required a sacrifice, then why does he say that he desires mercy, not sacrifice?

 

[ephraimanesti]

If God required a sacrifice, then why does he say that he desires mercy, not sacrifice?

MY SISTER,

God's mercy is self-evident in that HE provided the sacrifice He required. "For God so loved the world . . . ."

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[cerad]

Getting back to the original question, Jesus was crucified for preaching without a permit.

 

[ebia]

Well, I'm trying to understand how the crucifixion explains God. Does it point to a violently angry God, demanding restitution? Was the crucifixion required to satisfy God's blood lust? Or was it necessary to satisfy ours? Or something else completely? It's an important question to me.

In that sense - coming at it from a 21st century perspective that isn't used to the idea of sacrifice and atonement - Christus Victor is certainly the easiest to get one's head around.

Something to partake of?

Amongst other things, yes. But again, try to reduce it to a theory and you'll miss some of the point; the story needs to be left as story, the meal needs to be left as (passover) meal - with all the Exodus connotations that come with that. God didn't give us much in the way of theories to explain how what he was doing doing, he gave us stories, invitations and things to do.

 

[ConsiderableSpeck]

MY SISTER,

God's mercy is self-evident in that HE provided the sacrifice He required. "For God so loved the world . . . ."

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

But that doesn't really answer the question. Why would God require a sacrifice but also declare that he doesn't desire it?

 

[ConsiderableSpeck]

In that sense - coming at it from a 21st century perspective that isn't used to the idea of sacrifice and atonement - Christus Victor is certainly the easiest to get one's head around.

Well, that I absolutely agree with. And yet, the bible appears to contradict itself which hardly engenders trust in it's overall message... whatever that might be.

Perhaps, since you bring up the difference in perspective, it is possible that the idea of sacrifice being necessary to God comes about because the people of NT times were still bound to that system through their own misconceptions ... that God was simply meeting them where they were?

Amongst other things, yes. But again, try to reduce it to a theory and you'll miss some of the point; the story needs to be left as story, the meal needs to be left as (passover) meal - with all the Exodus connotations that come with that. God didn't give us much in the way of theories to explain how what he was doing doing, he gave us stories, invitations and things to do.

I am, I think, a reductionist by nature. I appreciate what you're saying ... I'm just not sure I have the first clue how to go about applying your suggested approach. But, I'll certainly put it in the pot and let it stew.

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Getting back to the original question, Jesus was crucified for preaching without a permit.

If you're considering part time work as a comedian, I would suggest you stick to your day time job.

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

If God required a sacrifice, then why does he say that he desires mercy, not sacrifice?

Firstly, try to understand the context of that verse, people were giving God the sacrifices that he commanded, but were treating each other contrary to God's commandments.

Read the Cross of Christ by John Stott.

 

[ebia]

Well, that I absolutely agree with. And yet, the bible appears to contradict itself which hardly engenders trust in it's overall message... whatever that might be.

Because you can't say everything at once, whatever we say theologically is only partial, a generalisation or a particular example or a simplification. If one treats each of those as complete absolutes then they will appear to contradict, but if we allow them to do their job - holding each other in tension, we start to get a feel (however partial and tenuous) for the underlying truth.

Perhaps, since you bring up the difference in perspective, it is possible that the idea of sacrifice being necessary to God comes about because the people of NT times were still bound to that system through their own misconceptions ... that God was simply meeting them where they were?

I'm sure that's true to an extent but I wouldn't want to reduce it to that.

I am, I think, a reductionist by nature.

I can relate to that - I have to conciously pull myself up on it.

I appreciate what you're saying ... I'm just not sure I have the first clue how to go about applying your suggested approach. But, I'll certainly put it in the pot and let it stew.

That's as much as anyone could ask.

 

[Van]

Hi Considerablespeck,

You wrote in the OP: Why was Jesus crucified? I'd like very much to hear your various opinions on the purpose of the crucifixion. Which atonement theory do you subscribe to? Penal Substitution, Satisfaction, Ransom, Christus Victor, Moral, something else entirely? Why?

I have not read all of the thread posts, so if some of this is redundant, I am sorry.

First, while it is somewhat common to blame the Jews or the Romans or us as sinners, scripture says "the Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.... So make no mistake, Jesus was crucified because that was God's plan. God brought it about.

So now to the meat of your question, why was it God's plan. Again scripture says Jesus (actually the pre-incarnate Word) was chosen to be the Lamb of God before creation, 1 Peter 1:20. So before anybody sinned, God's planned for a redeemer, and one does not choose a redeemer unless one plans on folks needing redemption. So when God chose His Redeemer, He also in effect chose everyone subsequently redeemed not individually but as part of the target group of His redemption plan, hence we were chosen "in Him," Ephesians 1:3-4.

Fine and dandy you might say, but why did God require the shedding of blood of a lamb without blemish, to propitiate or provide the means of salvation? Scripture says "Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Symbolically when God places a person spiritually "in Christ" they undergo the circumcision of Christ where the body of flesh (sin) is removed. "In Christ" we are continuously justified, which is to say any debt caused by our past, present and any future sins is redeemed, because the blood of the lamb paid the ransom.

Yes but why did God require the shedding of blood to pay the ransom needed to get us out of our "sin debt." First lets talk about the "sin debt." When we sin, we offend God, and since God is Holy (set apart from sinfulness) and just, our sin creates a separation between us and God and the price to reconcile us was the blood sacrifice of Jesus. Hence His sacrifice is the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Whoever believes in Him, as determined by God, receives the gift of salvation. Thus when God credits our faith as righteousness, He spiritually places us "in Christ" and "in Christ" we receive the reconciliation provided by His sacrifice for the whole world.

I do not think scripture says why God's immutable attributes of Holiness and Justness required a blood sacrifice to reconcile the "sin debt" it just says that is so. So for me to speculate further would be to commit the sin of Job and provide "counsel without knowledge and declare that which I did not understand." And some might say I already did that.

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[ephraimanesti]

But that doesn't really answer the question. Why would God require a sacrifice but also declare that he doesn't desire it?

MY DEAR SISTER,

God IS Love. Love never desires the hurt of another. i sometimes see Abba's position as that of a Medical Doctor--The Doctor diagnoses cancer in his patient. The cancer must be removed through a long and painful operation. The Doctor regretfully performs the operation knowing the pain it will cause but also knowing that unless he cuts out the cancerous tumor, his patient will die.

Sin, in actuality, is nothing more than a spiritual cancer. God, in His Love for us, desires our rehabilitation, not our death. Through the willing self-sacrifice of His Son on our behalf, both aims are achieved--justice is served, the sinner is re-born sinless, and God's desire for our happiness through our sanctity is fulfilled. It is the ultimate win-win situation--justice and mercy are equally served!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[Van]

Hi Considerablespeck, I see several references to the idea that God does not want sacrifice. Did Paul get it wrong when he wrote, "I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship." May it never be.

Well then, is this not a contradiction to Matthew 9:13 and 12:7 where Jesus quotes Hosea 6:6? The NASB translates the Greek (both verses in Matthew) as "I desire compassion, not sacrifice." Yet when the Hebrew is translated (verse in Hosea) it reads "I desire loyalty rather than sacrifice." In any event perhaps we should take Christ's direction and go learn what the phrase means.

The Hebrew word translated loyalty is "hesed" and means "steadfast love." Like Adam, the folks of Israel have transgressed the covenant, they have dealt treacherously against God. They paid "lip service" by sacrificing animals, but their hearts were far from God. God delights in folks that know Him, rather than burnt offerings. So the service of hypocritical Christians does not cut the mustard for He desires steadfast love, not just going through the motions.

May God Bless

 

[Van]

Hi Considerablespeck, I see I did not answer your question, which atonement theory to I believe is true. First lets shed the term "atonement" because it combines two separate transactions as presented in the Bible.

The first transaction is Christ dying on the cross as the lamb of God. God accepted His sacrifice as indicated by Christ's resurrection. So whatever was accomplished, has been accomplished, once for all mankind. Paul presents the two transactions in Romans 5:8-11. We, speaking collectively of mankind, were "reconciled" to God through the death of Son.

But then Paul continues and describe the second transaction, receiving the reconciliation. So Christ's death accomplished general reconciliation, all mankind was reconciled to God. But no individual had "received" that reconciliation.

In order to "receive" that reconciliation a second transaction occurs. Paul revisits the topic in 2 Corinthians 5:17-20. Here he says "God, who reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. Namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself [general reconciliation] not counting their trespasses against them and He has committed to us the word reconciliation. Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." So in order for an individual to receive the reconciliation, they are begged to be reconciled, that they might become the righteousness of God "in Him." How can they be justified and become the righteousness of God in Him?

Back to Romans 5:1-2, Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our access by faith into the grace in which we stand.

In summary, whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. We are saved by grace alone through our faith provided God credits it as righteousness, for through God's acceptance of our faith we receive the grace of reconciliation provided in Him when God spiritually places us "in Christ."

May God Bless