Did the torture of God's beloved Son satisfy Him?

[Guest]

So what did you do with the LAW in your construct? You have yet to answer from the LAW"S demand upon the sinner. What do you do with guilt under the LAW?

First, I would like to know to which "LAW" you refer? The LAW of Moses? Or the LAW of God? Hard as the law of Moses seemed, the law of God was much more demanding. The law of Christ expressed in the so-called "Sermon on the mount" in Matthew 5,6, and 7 went deeper that the mere outward observance expressed in the Mosaic law. Christ taught that "hating" is tantamount to "murder", that desiring another man's wife is tantamount to commiting adultery with her. Jesus taught that it was not enough to avoid swearing falsely, but one was not to take an oath at all.

The LAW of God was given for man's benefit, not for God's. Man's sin doesn't directly affect God, so why would he "demand payment" for it? This idea is not what the Bible teaches. It is a mere interpretation of passage which, in my understanding do not mean that at all.

The command in the OT to kill the adulterer, and those who committed other offences, was to try to keep the Israelites on track concerning the covenant God made with them. Of course, God is grieved when we sin. But He is not grieved because "His holiness demands it". He is grieved because we are harming ourselves and others. He doesn't have to be "paid" for the sin we commit. Yes, we owe Him our lives; for He created man. But we don't owe Him because of our failures to live righteously. Rather we owe ourselves to live righteously ---- for to do so is for our own benefit. God will not tolerate unrighteousness in heaven, and if we do not start on the road to discipleship and continue therein, we will face the judgment, and its results: the corrective fires of Gehenna. God insists that we become complete, perfect, and pure --- conformed to the image of Christ. We shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He really is.

Let's think about Christ's teaching about the LAW in the following account:

Mark 10: 17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

How did Jesus answer? Did He pull out the "four spiritual laws"? Did He tell him about His impending death, and that he would have to trust in His sacrifice on his behalf? Did He suggest that it was no use trying to keep the LAW, since he'd never succeed anyway? No. Jesus pointed out some of the ten commandments in His answer:

19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’"
20 And he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth."

Now how did Jesus answer? Did he say, "Oh, you might think you've kept them, but you're fooling youself. You haven't kept them perfectly all your life. It's impossible to do so. No, Jesus gave no indication that He disbelieved him at all. But the young man still lacked one little thing:

21 And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

Ahhh! the call to discipleship! It requires forsaking one's own ambitions and following Christ completely. This is the same message Christ gave to the multitudes:

If any one comes to me and does not disregard his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26-27

He then gave a parable about counting the personal cost of being His disciple and then finished with:

So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:33

Yes, our Lord taught that we have to let go of the old self-life, die to it completely, and live a life of service to him. The requirement to obtain eternal life is to become a disciple of Christ. This requirement has not changed. It includes repentance and baptism. John the baptizer taught the same. So did Peter and Paul and the other apostles.

How did the young man respond to the call to discipleship?

22 At that saying his countenance fell, and he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.

He was unable to forsake all that he had, for he still put his possessions first. He could not enter into the kingdom [rule] of God at that time.

[Guest]

The LAW of God was given for man's benefit, not for God's. Man's sin doesn't directly affect God, so why would he "demand payment" for it? This idea is not what the Bible teaches. It is a mere interpretation of passage which, in my understanding do not mean that at all.


Paidion, As you know in Lev 17.11 it says "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin" which refers to man needing forgiveness from God for his sins. So there is a sacrifice of blood here from an animal for a pardon from God to the sinner for previous sins committed.
Why does God require this? This does appear to be a transaction or to put it another way, a payment of a life of an animal to pardon sin. Same God here as in the NT correct?
So God commanded this transaction for man to obtain not deliverance but forgiveness. And who is doing the forgiving? Is it man forgiving himself or is it God doing the forgiving conditional on the spilling of blood.
You can read into this and think that God wanted man to know the gravity of sin therefore this spilling of blood would be a vivid reminder about the seriousness of sin and while this may be true, the bare facts remain that God demanded a payment.
It is also true that later in the OT God said He perfers repentence over sacrifice but he never did remove this command until the ultimate one was made.

[Guest]

Of course, God is grieved when we sin. But He is not grieved because "His holiness demands it". He is grieved because we are harming ourselves and others. He doesn't have to be "paid" for the sin we commit. Yes, we owe Him our lives; for He created man. But we don't owe Him because of our failures to live righteously. Rather we owe ourselves to live righteously ---- for to do so is for our own benefit.

Paidion, I really like the way you have presented this truth, and agree 100%.

I would like to add one small addendum to the last statement I quoted.

You said,
"Rather we owe ourselves to live righteously ---- for to do so is for our own benefit."

I'll add,
"and for the benefit of those who are blessed as a result of our service to them."

Todd

[AVoice]

Hello Paidion,

I do not deny the stress of Jesus' call to discipleship, the denying of the self-life, and giving absolute priority of our lives to Him. Those scriptures are clear enough. But, you still have not adequately (in my mind) delt with the Law. It is interesting how you seem to make a tri-chotomy of the Law at least by inference as if to say they differ; The Law of Moses, The Law of God, The Law of Christ. The embodiment of the Law is bound up and even hangs upon what both Moses and Jesus taught; "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and your neighbor as yourself"...

I will submit to you (if you are honest) that no-one at any time in human history has "done" this except Jesus, "completely". What you continue to emphasize at the expense of God's justice is our sanctification. I agree, it is a process. Justice at the very least as you have pointed out is "doing what's right", for the disadvantaged, the weak, the widow and the poor.
But the Justice I am talking about is its legal claim over us and is the grounds for Christ's Vicarious Atonement. The Law which has the penalty attached was "nailed to the Cross" with its ordinances. Jesus fulfilled the Law. In Christ the Law's demands are met completely.

I completely disagree with your conclusions regarding the giving of the Law. Yes you can say, one part is for man's benefit. Getting along with each other, social justice and order etc, are but secondary issues, IMO. The primary issue revealed in the Law is about who God is. His holiness, nature and character, His "otherness" if you will, are all bound up in who He is and as His Image bearers, how we are to treat each other. We do offend God when we violate His Laws against our neighbors. It is against is Holiness.

Quote:.." Man's sin doesn't directly affect God, so why would he "demand payment" for it? This idea is not what the Bible teaches. It is a mere interpretation of passage which, in my understanding do not mean that at all."

Oh, but our sin indeed directly affects God. Where do you get this strange idea from? Psalm 51:.. comes to mind. David's sin against Bathsheba;
vs 4, "against you (GOD) , and you only have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight"...

I would like you to use this logic on a secular judge in traffic court the next time you get a ticket.. "Oh but your honor, I didn't really violate the laws of the state by going too fast... after all, how do I offend the state by going too fast? My only risk is an accident. But how does that affect the state? Your demand that I pay this $500. ticket is ...well unjust.. your honor.... but your honor..what do you mean... "contempt of court"....? a 1ooo. dollars...!!! Okaaaaaaayyyyy. I'll pay the 500.

[AVoice]

Hello Todd,

Quote: ..."The part I particularly want to point out is bolded in verse 7. It states that eternal life is granted to those who are patiently continuing in good works. It does not say that eternal life is granted based on what Christ did"...

You cannot take a few verses from Romans and establish that "works" as you are using the term, saves us from the wrath of God. To be sure, the quality of our works will be under God's scrutiny. I already cited Paul in I Cor. 3:13-15 on the matter. Have you considered this? If you follow Pauls train of thought throughout Romans, you will see that Christ's sacrifice and blood Atonement is the central motif in the flow of his letter. His righteousness is contrasted with a legal righteousness imposed under the Law. A law that cannot save, only convict men of their sin and unrighteousness before a Holy God who demands it. To be sure we are called to righteousness, to be holy in all our conduct-even strive for it. But remember what our Lord also said in Mat. in the beatitudes, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness...", blessed are the poor in Spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven".. Why do you suppose Jesus said this? Righteousness is demanded by and grounded in the very nature and being of God. We have failed to attain it. The reason why righteousness is so important is that man does not have it! We must be made aware we don't have it. I am sure that there are those here who may be pleased with their character.. Paul shows us the shallowness of such an outlook, IMO. Salvation in Christ is a gift you don't "work" for to recieve. As Paul stated else where, it wouldn't be a gift but a wage.

[Guest]

Paidion,

The story of the Rich Young Ruler in Mark 10 is about "The Missing Commandment."

This man had kept each of the 10 Commandments Jesus mentioned that have to do with relationships with other people, as well as another commandment: "You shall not defraud (a lowly or poor servant)" (De 24:14).

Where this man missed the mark was his not keeping one of the 10 Commandments. Namely, 10. YOU SHALL NOT COVET, which Jesus had, strangely, not mentioned to him.

Was this a test to see if he would ask about the one Commandment he undoubtedly knew he failed at? But since Jesus did not mention it, was he "off the hook" now? (It seems he initially thought so, v. 20).

Mark 10:21 And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

Ahhh! the call to discipleship! It requires forsaking one's own ambitions and following Christ completely.

Sure, we're called to discipleship. However, like for the Rich Young Ruler; discipleship includes obeying every Law of God. Mark 10:21 is about the 10th Commandment...which this young man had, apparently, been quite guilty of breaking. This verse is not a universal call for everyone to sell all their stuff and give it away. However, for this man it was required of the Lord.

Our call to discipleship will always be beneficial to us since the Lord loves us and knows what we lack. Somewhere it says, "His commands are not burdensome (or grievious)." That is, unless we love money or some other person or thing more than God.

James 2, NASB
10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

James is reaffirming exactly what his brother taught, imo.
Rick

P.S. I hadn't noticed this passage is really about "The Missing Commandment" till someone @ Beliefnet pointed it out.

"O God, am I skimping over any of your Commands?
Take not Thy Holy Spirit from me! In Jesus' Name, Amen."

[Guest]

The primary issue revealed in the Law is about who God is. His holiness, nature and character, His "otherness" if you will, are all bound up in who He is and as His Image bearers, how we are to treat each other. We do offend God when we violate His Laws against our neighbors. It is against is Holiness.

I'd like to add the "position" of God to the discussion: Our Holy God, in all of His attributes, nature, and character, also has a Kingdom and One who fills the position of its King: JESUS (REIGNS)! ...I'm Amill, just had to say that,

Anyways, where was I? Praise the Lord! Oh yeah....

Sovereign rulers or kings have the rule of law which serves the purpose of maintaining order. Law and/or laws are beneficial not only for the subjects of a king, or to citizens of a kingdom; they are beneficial to the king himself. It's quite beneficial -- and absolutely necessary for all concerned (to the ruler and to the ruled) -- that order is maintained. This applies across the board in all governments, whether earthly or divine: Without law you have anarchy. Therefore, God benefits from His Laws. He says, "I will be their God and they will be My People."
Rick

[Guest]

Hello Todd,

Quote: ..."The part I particularly want to point out is bolded in verse 7. It states that eternal life is granted to those who are patiently continuing in good works. It does not say that eternal life is granted based on what Christ did"...

You cannot take a few verses from Romans and establish that "works" as you are using the term, saves us from the wrath of God. To be sure, the quality of our works will be under God's scrutiny. I already cited Paul in I Cor. 3:13-15 on the matter. Have you considered this? If you follow Pauls train of thought throughout Romans, you will see that Christ's sacrifice and blood Atonement is the central motif in the flow of his letter. His righteousness is contrasted with a legal righteousness imposed under the Law. A law that cannot save, only convict men of their sin and unrighteousness before a Holy God who demands it. To be sure we are called to righteousness, to be holy in all our conduct-even strive for it. But remember what our Lord also said in Mat. in the beatitudes, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness...", blessed are the poor in Spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven".. Why do you suppose Jesus said this? Righteousness is demanded by and grounded in the very nature and being of God. We have failed to attain it. The reason why righteousness is so important is that man does not have it! We must be made aware we don't have it. I am sure that there are those here who may be pleased with their character.. Paul shows us the shallowness of such an outlook, IMO. Salvation in Christ is a gift you don't "work" for to recieve. As Paul stated else where, it wouldn't be a gift but a wage.

Bob,

I appreciate your patience with me and my assertions. Let me explain my position on these issues. I am a believer in Universal Roconciliation through Christ. I am afraid that my posts seem to de-emphasize what Christ did for us. Let me be clear. I believe that Christ accomplished Universal Reconciliation for all of mankind through His obedience (Rom 5:10, 2 Cor 5:19). He also conquered death and paved the way for the resurrection of both the just and the unjust. However, what I was attempting to point out, is that even though we have been reconciled, God still calls us to righteousness and wants us to help each other through the struggles of life. He rewards and punishes us based on what we do in this regard. All the verses about the judgment of mankind are consistent on this point - we are rewarded and punished according to our works. I must emphasize the word "according" because this means that it is porportional - not endless. Ulitmately, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord, and we will all be part of the Everlasting Kingdom.

The reason I bring this up in this thread is because I think it supports Paidion's point. God is not encumbered with human frailties, such as needing to be appeased. But He does have compassion on ALL His creation and desires that each one of us serves others (following Christ's example) so that burdens are lessened and love and joy are spread. And in our doing so, God finds satisfaction.

Todd

[Guest]

Sure, we're called to discipleship. However, like for the Rich Young Ruler; discipleship includes obeying every Law of God.

If that is the case, Rick, have there ever been any disciples of Christ on earth?

Or do you mean "discipleship includes intention to obey every Law of God"?

[AVoice]

Todd,

Quote: "The reason I bring this up in this thread is because I think it supports Paidion's point. God is not encumbered with human frailties, such as needing to be appeased. But He does have compassion on ALL His creation and desires that each one of us serves others (following Christ's example) so that burdens are lessened and love and joy are spread. And in our doing so, God finds satisfaction."

IMO, the problem with Paidion's view of the Atonement seems to insist Jesus' sacrifice does not "satisfy" the demand of a Holy God, nor does God require such a "blood sacrifice" in vindication of His justice. It seems he and perhaps others find the idea repulsive to their sensitivities at the expense of what God's righteousness demands from sinful man, both in conduct with his fellow man and in relation to Him. Some find the idea somehow as beneath God. The Law of redemption in the Word required
blood sacrifice; "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness".
But we must realize that the sacrificial blood of Christ is not offered up by man to appease an "angry god(s)", but by our Father in Heaven providing the Lamb in our behalf. Here God vindicates His own justice vicariously through Christ-the God-Man. Jesus was not a happless victim. He was not only willing, but also as our Kinsman Redeemer He was able to redeem us.

To the Jew, Jesus is an offense and a "stone of stumbling". To the Gentile,
foolishness. Let he who has ears hear.

In Him,
Bob