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

[dizerner]

Darin I'm a little frustrated by the way you phrase your question and the readiness you seem to have to declare yourself unanswerable. You say "assuming Jesus is God" then ask "Why does God have to die." Which would equate to "Why did Jesus have to die," then right? Or am I missing something? Because that's the question I originally answered that you seem to think missed your intention entirely. Please clarify exactly what you are asking:

A. Why did Jesus have to be God?

B. Why couldn't someone other than Jesus die for us?

Thanks.

In defense of my answer, I think I implied that only the divine could accomplish many of the things Jesus Christ accomplished: payment for every person's sin in full; creating all things initially, then having all creation reborn inside of him; accomplishing the righteousness and salvation of God by the arm of God; defeating all of hell and Satan and his demons; tasting death for every man yet coming back from complete death by the power of the Divine; cleansing all impure things by his blood that poured from his veins, as a perfect and spotless lamb; and ministering in the Holiest of Holies in the true temple of God in heaven, whose throne is said to dwell in unapproachable light and holiness. I would really think the onus is on you to explain to me how all these things are possible by a creation. You could go one by one, and tell me how a created thing could accomplish each item, and use Scripture to back it up. Do that, and you'll have a convert in me.

[steve7150]

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."








If you mean by "direct scriptural support" then you are right but it's a clear deduction IMHO. In the OT animals were sacrificed to pay for mans sins but it had to be done at least once a year and it only covered sins.
So if Jesus sacrifice is only once and may cover all of mankind forever, what is the logical conclusion. The logical conclusion is that Jesus is greater then mankind and he has the VALUE to pay for our sins. It doesn't prove his divinity but it suggests it.

[Paidion]

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

.

The "Great Isaiah Scroll" comes from cave 1. Not much of it from cave 4 has survived. As I previously explained, scrolls only found in cave 4 is of the text type from which the Septuagint was translated, and the NT writers quoted from the Septuagint. The scrolls from all other Qumran caves have a text type somewhat similar to the Masoretic text, though even they differ from the Masoretic text in many respects.

I prefer to trust the inspired writers of the New Testament who quoted from the Septuagint, than the Hebrew of a text type other than that found in cave 4.

I think further discussion of the Hebrew text types and the Septuagint should be carried to a new thread for that purpose. We don't want to derail the main question of this thread.

[Homer]

Hi Darrin,

You have actually have asked at least three somewhat different questions:

(OP) Putting the trinitarian issues aside of whether God did Himself actually die on the cross when His Son laid down His life, please discuss the Scriptural arguments as to whether it was REQUIRED that God lay down His own life to atone for our sins.

To my understanding you are asking whether it was required that Jesus, as part of the Trinity, should be required to die as an atonement for sin. It is not possible that God, who is immortal, could die, but Jesus, being incarnate could and did die - the human part of Him at least. Did He have to die? Jesus prayed in the garden that there would be another way, and we can be sure that God heard and rejected the request. How else could it be if He was "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world"; it had to be fulfilled.

Was God's death required

(the who)?

Who else? "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin" so animal sacrifices would not suffice. We are sinners, owing our life for our sin; "the wages of sin is death", so we have nothing, no life to offer. As the sacrificial lamb must be spotless, only Jesus, God in the flesh and sinless, was a suitable sacrifice.

(OP)Let's assume for the moment that Jesus was in every conceivable way "God" Himself, and that God did choose to die on the cross in human form, was it necessary to satisfy some divine decree or law of nature or other reason? Or was it merely His good pleasure to do so?

Romans 3:23-26 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

23. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24. being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25. whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26. for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary explains it well, I think:

26. To declare … at this time—now for the first time, under the Gospel.
his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus—Glorious paradox! "Just in punishing," and "merciful in pardoning," men can understand; but "just in justifying the guilty," startles them. But the propitiation through faith in Christ's blood resolves the paradox and harmonizes the discordant elements. For in that "God hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin," justice has full satisfaction; and in that "we are made the righteousness of God in Him," mercy has her heart's delight!

Why was God's death required (who or what required it)?

The only way that God, who is immortal, could die was to become incarnate in Christ and thus internalize the penalty for our sins, "the just for the unjust".

Did someone have to die, did it have to be the Son of Man, and was He God himself that had to die?

See above.

[TheEditor]

I don't think Darin's question is really all that confusing. What he is asking (it seems to me) is that is the sacrifice that is necessary to accomplish the At-One-Ment (I'm glad to see you spell it that way Graeme, as I have always thought of it that way) between God and man necessarily that of God? Was the "gap" so huge that God actually had to die. Of course, if one believes the trinity, then it's a given that they would believe that God somehow actually did the dying, the question was, did it need to be God that did the dying? I think, for purposes of this conversation, two things need to be kept in mind:

1. The Ransom (Atonement) only works because God says it does--He accepts it. Just as the copper serpent in the wilderness had no magical properties or voodoo that cured the Israelites; it only worked because that was God's provision for the healing. He accepted it.

2. If strict justice (payment) for what Adam lost is all that needs to be Atoned for, then we would have that in any perfect man being offered up to God. Adam (a perfect man) lost out on life for himself, and all that were in his loins. Jesus (the last Adam) a perfect man, bought back all that the first Adam lost; Perfect life for himself and all in his loins (those that would have been born).

A long time ago I remember having a conversation with some friends about this very thing. It seemed to me then (and it still does now) that, hypothetically, if a perfect man could have been found on the planet, and that man willingly laid down his life for mankind, then God would not be obligated to accept the sacrifice. But, if God chose to, then He could have.

By going to the extent that God did, it engenders a heart response from humans. It seems as though God could also have just forgiven without offering His Son. But if He did that, then there would have been zero reason for a heart response by men toward God.

Regards, Brenden.

[jaydam]

Not to derail the thread, but it seems to me as I consider Brenden's post:

Man moved to God through the offering of repetitive sacrifices.

God then moves to man through a single sacrifice.

In the first method, man gave the sacrifice, and in the second, God gave the sacrifice.

Not sure where I'm going with that yet, just a consideration of the direction of the sacrificial flow from men to God then God to men.

[darinhouston]

Darin I'm a little frustrated by the way you phrase your question and the readiness you seem to have to declare yourself unanswerable. You say "assuming Jesus is God" then ask "Why does God have to die." Which would equate to "Why did Jesus have to die," then right? Or am I missing something? Because that's the question I originally answered that you seem to think missed your intention entirely. Please clarify exactly what you are asking:

A. Why did Jesus have to be God?

B. Why couldn't someone other than Jesus die for us?

Thanks.

In defense of my answer, I think I implied that only the divine could accomplish many of the things Jesus Christ accomplished: payment for every person's sin in full; creating all things initially, then having all creation reborn inside of him; accomplishing the righteousness and salvation of God by the arm of God; defeating all of hell and Satan and his demons; tasting death for every man yet coming back from complete death by the power of the Divine; cleansing all impure things by his blood that poured from his veins, as a perfect and spotless lamb; and ministering in the Holiest of Holies in the true temple of God in heaven, whose throne is said to dwell in unapproachable light and holiness. I would really think the onus is on you to explain to me how all these things are possible by a creation. You could go one by one, and tell me how a created thing could accomplish each item, and use Scripture to back it up. Do that, and you'll have a convert in me.

It sounds like I'm the only one around here that thinks I've been clear, so I'm frustrated as well. I have tried really hard to narrow the point to a very specific question.

As to A, I don't think I ever asked this question directly. Putting aside the facts of the atonement, I am trying to address one of the suppositions (frequently stated in support of Jesus' being God) behind the atonement. That is, VERY SPECIFICALLY, please support with scripture the proposition that the sin of mankind was so aggregious against a holy God that only by God dying HIMSELF could this be atoned for. The proposition further implies that no other sacrifice by any man or angel or divine being less than being fully God Himself or even the Son of God to the extent He isn't God could have alleviated this cosmic harm to an infinite God. I don't find this supportable, and I haven't seen any response beyond repeating the assumption or begging the very question.

The onus isn't on me because it's not my postulation -- as good as it "sounds" and as "holy" as the discourse above and others might resonate, if someone states such a declarative position about the nature of God and the nature of Sin, then it should be on them to support it with Scripture.

Also, I am the one asking the question, so I don't see how the onus should be on me to answer it. If no one has an answer beyond a declarative presupposition, so be it.

[darinhouston]

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."


If you mean by "direct scriptural support" then you are right but it's a clear deduction IMHO. In the OT animals were sacrificed to pay for mans sins but it had to be done at least once a year and it only covered sins.
So if Jesus sacrifice is only once and may cover all of mankind forever, what is the logical conclusion. The logical conclusion is that Jesus is greater then mankind and he has the VALUE to pay for our sins. It doesn't prove his divinity but it suggests it.

I think you are right that there is no direct (or even clear indirect) scriptural support. The deduction, however, is flawed (or at least doesn't go far enough to answer the question I've asked). You are right that it MIGHT suggest it, but that doesn't support such a dogmatic position about the nature of God and the nature of Sin (declared and assumed by many/most at least). That it takes something extraordinary? Yes, Hebrews as much as states this directly. That it takes someone extraordinary? Same. That it takes someone sinless? Of course. But, that's not the same as saying it takes the death/sacrifice of God Himself because of how aggregious the harm. In Hebrews and elsewhere, I think the focus is on the "extent" of man's Sin and not the aggregious nature of the harm to a holy God. When I see God's justice reflected in the teachings of Jesus, it's not equal harm and equal retribution -- eye for an eye and so forth. That's what I hear in suppport of this doctrine and I just don't think it properly reflects God's reaction to sin. Why would God demand equal retribution for harm to Himself that He doesn't ask of us towards each other just because he's so holy? I don't suggest he's not holy, but I do suggest his reaction and demands don't reflect what is taught about him and his "rights" or cosmic "demands" that have to be satisfied because of who He is.

[darinhouston]

To my understanding you are asking whether it was required that Jesus, as part of the Trinity, should be required to die as an atonement for sin. It is not possible that God, who is immortal, could die, but Jesus, being incarnate could and did die - the human part of Him at least. Did He have to die? Jesus prayed in the garden that there would be another way, and we can be sure that God heard and rejected the request. How else could it be if He was "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world"; it had to be fulfilled.

No. see other responses to dizerner et al. today -- it's a more fundamental question. Assuming the answer is yes, I agree with your answer here as to how it would have been satisified.

(the who)?

Who else? "It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin" so animal sacrifices would not suffice. We are sinners, owing our life for our sin; "the wages of sin is death", so we have nothing, no life to offer. As the sacrificial lamb must be spotless, only Jesus, God in the flesh and sinless, was a suitable sacrifice.

Yes, this is precisely the question. But, you have merely restated the position not supported it. Spotless, yes -- God Himself being the only way one could be spotless? Not here at least. One related question. Was Adam sufficiently spotless before the Fall? Jesus is the new Adam. He satisfies it by being in the same condition pre-Fall as Adam it seems to me. The only way God could do that would be by a virgin birth unless He created Jesus directly from the elements as most agree He did when creating Adam. But, even though this MIGHT have sufficed, such a Jesus might not have been sufficiently tied to mankind to accomplish the redemption for mankind's sin.

[darinhouston]

I don't think Darin's question is really all that confusing. What he is asking (it seems to me) is that is the sacrifice that is necessary to accomplish the At-One-Ment (I'm glad to see you spell it that way Graeme, as I have always thought of it that way) between God and man necessarily that of God? Was the "gap" so huge that God actually had to die. Of course, if one believes the trinity, then it's a given that they would believe that God somehow actually did the dying, the question was, did it need to be God that did the dying? I think, for purposes of this conversation, two things need to be kept in mind:

1. The Ransom (Atonement) only works because God says it does--He accepts it. Just as the copper serpent in the wilderness had no magical properties or voodoo that cured the Israelites; it only worked because that was God's provision for the healing. He accepted it.

2. If strict justice (payment) for what Adam lost is all that needs to be Atoned for, then we would have that in any perfect man being offered up to God. Adam (a perfect man) lost out on life for himself, and all that were in his loins. Jesus (the last Adam) a perfect man, bought back all that the first Adam lost; Perfect life for himself and all in his loins (those that would have been born).

A long time ago I remember having a conversation with some friends about this very thing. It seemed to me then (and it still does now) that, hypothetically, if a perfect man could have been found on the planet, and that man willingly laid down his life for mankind, then God would not be obligated to accept the sacrifice. But, if God chose to, then He could have.

By going to the extent that God did, it engenders a heart response from humans. It seems as though God could also have just forgiven without offering His Son. But if He did that, then there would have been zero reason for a heart response by men toward God.

Regards, Brenden.

Well said -- if we are going to "do theology" we HAVE to be able to narrow our lens enough to parse such a small (though important) question. Otherwise, instead of building our doctrines precept upon precept, we will be building them presupposition upon presupposition.