Atontement: Was it "necessary" for God to die?

[robbyyoung]

So, I repeat my question... are there any Scriptural bases to suggest that man's sin is such a transgression that God Himself had to be the sacrifice? Not that a sacrifice was necessary, and not that Jesus had to die, but that the one to suffer and die MUST of necessity have been God Himself.

Hi Darin,

If Isaiah 9:6 "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given: and the government shall be on his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." is referring to Yeshua, then as "The Mighty God", He died and atoned for our sins. I have my own understanding regarding God and Gods, but that's another topic altogether.

God Bless.

[Homer]

IMO, this article is as close as you will get to an answer:

http://johnmarkhicks.faithsite.com/content.asp?CID=7015

Quote from the article:

God does not satisfy a law higher than himself. God is not subservient to some higher principle. On the contrary, God's character is the highest principle in the universe. He owes nothing to no one (Job 41:11; Romans 11: 35).

The atonement was necessary because God determined that it was so.

Paidion posted:

George MacDonald wrote:
They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice. Be sure that the thing that God gives, the righteousness that is of God, is a real thing, and not a contemptible legalism. Pray God I have no righteousness imputed to me. Let me be regarded as the sinner I am; for nothing will serve my need but to be made a righteous man, one that will no more sin. (Unspoken Sermons III, Righteousness)

MacDonald seems to know nothing of the concept that in the atonement both justice and mercy are served. What mercy! God took upon Himself the punishment we deserved! Glory to God!

[Paidion]

George MacDonald did not contrast justice and mercy as so many today do. He believed that they were in perfect harmony.

[Paidion]

If Isaiah 9:6 "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given: and the government shall be on his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" is referring to Yeshua, then as "The Mighty God", He died and atoned for our sins.

Robby, this is a translation of the Masoretic Hebrew text. The Greek Septuagint is quite different. Here is an English translation of the Septuagint:

For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

You may be thinking, "Why trust the Septuagint (a translation from Hebrew into Greek) above the Masoretic Hebrew text? Isn't the latter more direct?

I say the latter is corrupted, and when the New Testament writers quoted from the Old Testament, they used the Septuagint. I discussed the merits of the Septuagint in another thread. Mine is one of the most recent posts. Here is a link to it:

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... 315#p68315

[steve7150]

Perhaps since Lev 17.11 says that the sheding of blood is necessary for atonement , it takes someone greater than mankind to have the authority to shed blood and die (wages of sin is death) for the sins of man (a lessor being).

[darinhouston]

I have been doing a my own study on the atonement, and it seems Hebrew 9:23-28 and the surrounding context is the closest scripture I can think of that might touch on your actual question.

Obviously you'll have to decide for yourself, depending on what you take the passage to mean:

23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another—26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

Yes, clearly Christ offered Himself as the sacrifice. But, that doesn't necessarily have any proof value for the prospect that God had to die to right a cosmic wrong done to God Himself as opposed to His son being a sufficient sacrifice. Even if you believe Jesus was God, then this would prove that God died, but even assuming that poin it doesn't offer any proof value that it is His "godness" that was necessary to be effective. Moreover, even those who would agree that Jesus was in some manner God as part of the "godhead," I don't think ANYONE would argue that the entire Godhead died on the cross. If so, then the logic of the philosophical arguments fail. Didn't mankind sin against the holiness and purity of the godhead? If so, then wouldn't the entire godhead have to die for this logic to work out?

[darinhouston]

So, I repeat my question... are there any Scriptural bases to suggest that man's sin is such a transgression that God Himself had to be the sacrifice? Not that a sacrifice was necessary, and not that Jesus had to die, but that the one to suffer and die MUST of necessity have been God Himself.

Hi Darin,

If Isaiah 9:6 "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given: and the government shall be on his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." is referring to Yeshua, then as "The Mighty God", He died and atoned for our sins. I have my own understanding regarding God and Gods, but that's another topic altogether.

God Bless.

Yes, this is also another topic altogether, one which we have been debating for months (the extent to which Jesus is God). This is a different issue.

[darinhouston]

Perhaps since Lev 17.11 says that the sheding of blood is necessary for atonement , it takes someone greater then mankind to have the authority to shed blood and die (wages of sin is death) for the sins of man (a lessor being).

OK, so you're at least trying. But, the scripture affirms one of the agreed premises. Your follow-on statement lacks that it takes someone greater than mankind to have authority to shed blood and die lacks direct Scriptural support. It might be inferred from Hebrews 9, but even then it's going to be limited to someone "without the sinful nature of mankind" not necessarily some "greater" if by that you imply divinity or "godness."

So, we're still lacking that critical response to the precise point of my inquiry. I'm pretty confident no one will be able to do so.

[darinhouston]

IMO, this article is as close as you will get to an answer:

http://johnmarkhicks.faithsite.com/content.asp?CID=7015

This is a pretty robust treatment of the atonement, but doesn't even try to answer the question I raised.

[dizerner]

If Isaiah 9:6 "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given: and the government shall be on his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" is referring to Yeshua, then as "The Mighty God", He died and atoned for our sins.

Robby, this is a translation of the Masoretic Hebrew text. The Greek Septuagint is quite different. Here is an English translation of the Septuagint:

For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

You may be thinking, "Why trust the Septuagint (a translation from Hebrew into Greek) above the Masoretic Hebrew text? Isn't the latter more direct?

I say the latter is corrupted, and when the New Testament writers quoted from the Old Testament, they used the Septuagint. I discussed the merits of the Septuagint in another thread. Mine is one of the most recent posts. Here is a link to it:

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... 315#p68315

The Great Isaiah Scroll, over 1000 years older than the Masoretic text, perfectly agrees with it on Isaiah 9:6.

http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qa-tran.htm