Why exactly did Jesus have to die?

[Guest]

If God could simply forgive sins i think the whole sacrifice system starting with the tabernacle would be unnecessary. The tabernacle instructions took up 50 chapters in the OT wheras creation only took 2 chapters therefore this "way" of obtaining forgiveness seems to have outweighed any other subject in the OT. In the NT the majority of the gospels were about leading up to Jesus's death which he predicted often and he said he "MUST SUFFER AND DIE" and then be raised on the third day. Isaiah 53 specifically says he "was bruised for our transgressions" the "chastisement of our peace was upon him" and "by his stripes we are healed."
This sounds like our transgressions keep us from having peace with God and his suffering and death restore our peace with God. Therefore though God is love i think "justice" is a character trait that must be satisfied in God and this law of justice can not be compromised by God yet somehow God deemed it possible for Jesus to step in as mankind's substitute.
Seems like the penalty of death was necessary because of sin and as to why Jesus could pay the price as our substitute it's never explicitly stated as far as i know.
And yes his sacrifice also can deliver us from sins going forward but we need forgiveness for prior sins committed.
Islam accepts the OT, can your friend explain why animal sacrifices were necessary in the OT? Additionally my understanding of Isalm is that no muslim knows if he is forgiven and that Allah is pleased, not even Muhammed.

[Guest]

Hey Steve,

Islam most definitely does not accept the Tanakh, otherwise they would have to reject the Koran. What they do is use the scriptures to try and argue certain points, but as soon as they come across something that doesn't fit their argument, they either deny it is authentic, or else simply ignore it. This can be quite frustrating.

Concerning their idea of security, the Muslims I speak to seem to say that Islam teaches a form of eternal security with an element of purgatory. As long as you believe in Allah and that Mohammed is his prophet, then you will eventually be in paradise forever with a possible sojourn in a place of refining torment. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

[Guest]

Concerning their idea of security, the Muslims I speak to seem to say that Islam teaches a form of eternal security with an element of purgatory. As long as you believe in Allah and that Mohammed is his prophet, then you will eventually be in paradise forever with a possible sojourn in a place of refining torment. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Yes Ely but i can't quite place it! But seriously i've read a couple of books by ex muslims and heard a couple speak and they said the Quran does not guarentee anything. If it did i question why these suicide bombers would be so motivated.

[Guest]

without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, so he had to die.

REV 7
14 I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

EPH 1
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace

EPH 2
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by[11][Or in ] the blood of Christ.
14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make[14][Lit create ] the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,
16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

[Guest]

without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, so he had to die.`



Jeff, and the life is in the BLOOD but the question is WHY? It seems like symbolism of some kind but WHY BLOOD.
Why did many ancient civilizations sacrifice blood of animals and sometimes even humans like the Aztecs did.
It seems that instinctively we know the blood is sacred.

[_Derek]

Jesus forgave sins during His earthly ministry (before His death). Therefore, one might conclude, that the death of Christ was not essential for forgiveness. Here are some references.

Hi Todd,

In your first two biblical examples, both instances show the people placing their faith in God, and in His mercy. In the thirtd Jesus doesn't stone her, which is the potential "condemnation" in that context, but there is no mention of forgiveness of sins (though He may have forgiven her for the same reason given above).

Faith in God's mercy is what brings forgiveness. That faith is necessary, is obvious from the scriptures, as far back as Gen 15:6.

I would also cite Luke 18:9-13 as another example of someone being forgiven before the death of Christ (the publican is said to be "justifed"). In fact everyone that was forgiven before the incarnation was forgiven before He died.

That people were forgiven by God before Christ's death, is a point in which everyone agrees. However, this does not prove that Christ's death was not necessary. People merely placed their faith in the mercy of God, which ultimately played out in the giving of His Son, who "bore the iniquities" of all that placed, and will place, their faith in God.

The problem I have with your theory, is that nothing objective happens, between the father and Son secureing salvation when the bible seems to teach otherwise. Like in Is. 53, and Hebrews 9-10.

It is because we have a "great high priest" as our mediator, who has "obtained redemption" for us, who "appears in the presence of God for us", that we can come "boldy unto the throne of Grace".

It's not that I don't agree with you or Paidion, it's just that you are narrowing the atonement down to only one of it's many aspects, when it is much more mutifaceted than that. I don't understand the need to do this at all!

It may seem from my posts, that I only believe in the substitutionary aspect of the atonement. This is not so. I just harp on the substitutionary aspect all of the time, because it is ignored in your understanding (and perhaps Paidion's). I am merely stateing that Jesus' death wasn't only an example for us to follow, that it isn't only to save us from sin, and it isn't only to obtain the ressurection (as you have stated elsewhere).

That Christ's death was an example of the world's injustice, that it was an example for us to follow in obediance to God (1 Peter 2:21), that the story of the cross influences us to repent and follow Christ, that Christ died for our justification (Rom 5:9), by taking our punishment (Is 53:11), reconciling us to God (Rom 5:10), that Christ made possible the living of righteous lives by saving us from the power of sin (Rom 8:3-4), etc... are all parts of a greater whole. I see no reason to see otherwise.

This more mutlifaceted view seems preferable in my opinion, because one is able to simply take all of the relevant passages dealing with the atonement at face value. There is nothing illogical, (to my limited knowledge), in believing that all of the above mentioned aspects are legitimate parts of the atonement.

So why the need to see the atonement in such a one-dimensional way? What can't it be all of these things and more?

God bless!

[Guest]

Jeff, and the life is in the BLOOD but the question is WHY? It seems like symbolism of some kind but WHY BLOOD.

Im a little vague, but it was a requirement of God.Like in Egypt,
A unblemished lamb had to be killed and its blood put on the doorposts, and the Angel of death would passover-hence the passover.
Jesus being unblemished provides the same protection for all who believe today-

Still doesnt really explain why blood, but its his blood alone that has sealed the New covenant for all who believe in it.

Anyone know why specifically Blood had to be shed ?

[Guest]

That Christ's death was an example of the world's injustice, that it was an example for us to follow in obediance to God, that the story of the cross influences us to repent and follow Christ, that Christ died for our justification by taking our punishment, that Christ made possible the living of righteous lives by saving us from the power of sin, etc... are all parts of a greater whole. I see no reason to see otherwise.

This more mutlifaceted view seems preferable in my opinion, because one is able to simply take all of the relevant passages dealing with the atonement at face value. There is nothing illogical, (to my limited knowledge), in believing that all of the above mentioned aspects are legitimate parts of the atonement.

So why the need to see the atonement in such a one-dimensional way? What can't it be all of these things and more?

God bless!

Hi Derek,

Yes, you are correct. The New Testament gives us many different explanations (or figures?) for why Jesus had to die. As you have said, all of these must have a place in our understanding. It just seems to me that taking them literally may not be the correct approach. A fundamentalist approach would be to take them all literally. I don't mean that Jesus was actually a Lamb, but the fundamentalist would say that His death had literally the same effect as killing the Lamb in the Old Testament. Perhaps there is a deeper understanding to be gleaned from this picture. I find it hard to accept that God would literally require human sacrifice in order to forgive - so I think there is some more subtle meaning in this. Somehow I think all these explanations of why Jesus died must tie into what Paidion was talking about; namely, that we all need to repent of our sins and seek to be righteous, and that His death somehow enables us to do just that. It may be that we can realize that sin leads to death, or that the shedding of blood sensitizes us to the horror of sin, or something else.

It just seems to me that the ultimate goal of Christianity is for God to purify unto Himself a people zealous of good works (which is what we will be judged on). With this in mind, His death must serve to make this happen.

Todd

[_Derek]

It just seems to me that taking them literally may not be the correct approach. A fundamentalist approach would be to take them all literally.

Please note that I did not say "take them literally", but that I take them "at face value" which is not necessarilly the same thing. I don't follow some rule that says I have to take everything "literally".

[Guest]

It's not that I don't agree with you or Paidion, it's just that you are narrowing the atonement down to only one of it's many aspects, when it is much more mutifaceted than that. I don't understand the need to do this at all!



I agree Derek, i think it forgives past,present and future and delivers from sin going forward. These aspects are not exclusive of each other.
Re the forgiveness given by Jesus prior to his death i think his death was able to credit people with forgiveness on credit before it happened which is why Abraham was deemed righteous.