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

[steve7150]

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.
ie






I agree the atonement is mostly about the extent of mans sin and not about the harm to God. It's not a doctrine of mine but more a matter of logic to me that Jesus must be divine to have the value to die for mankinds sin. To have another created being die for other created beings seems to be insufficient for the extent of the engagement , but it is a deduction. I don't see Jesus as "God" , so it's not like God dying for God but rather Jesus as "The Word of God" a divine being dying for our sins.
A good question may be, why couldn't God just forgive our sins without an atonement?

[Paidion]

My position is SO far from these concepts that I scarcely know how to reply. How can sins be PAID for? A person can be retributively punished for wrongdoing, but that in no sense "pays" for what he has done. What a wrongdoer needs is the means to stop behaving wrongly. God isn't interested in payment for wrong; He is interested in repentance (a change of heart and mind) and as a consequence, a change in behaviour. The wrongdoer must somehow gain a regeneration of his whole being, and receive help so that he can apply the enabling grace of God in his life.

There's nothing at all in the New Testament encouraging propitiation of God. "Propitiation" is not the meaning of the Greek word so translated. The idea that we can appease God by offering sacrifice is far from God's heart!

From ancient times, nations from all over the world sacrificed to their gods in order to appease them so that they wouldn't harm them. But the one True God never made such a requirement.

Ps 40:6 Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required.(Psalm 40:6)

You have given me an open ear or as the KJV has it“mine ears hast thou opened”Literally, it is “you have dug ears for me”. God has cleaned out the wax from my ears, so that I can hear properly. It is not sacrifice that He wants. Rather He wants me to hear Him and to obey the words that I hear!

"For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices."But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.’ (Jeremiah 7:22,23)

Again, God had never wanted sacrifices but obedience. When Saul used sacrificing to God his excuse for disobedience, Samuel said to him, “To obey is better than to sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams (given in sacrifice). (I Sam 15:22)

Hear the word of Yahweh , You rulers of Sodom; Give ear to the law of our God, You people of Gomorrah:"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?" Says Yahweh. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, Or of lambs or goats. "When you come to appear before Me, Who has required this from your hand, To trample My courts? Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies—I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; They are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; Even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood.
Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil. Learn to do good. Seek justice. Rebuke the oppressor. Defend the fatherless. Plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together," says Yahweh, "Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. If you are willing and obedient, You shall eat the good of the land; But if you refuse and rebel, You shall be devoured by the sword"; For the mouth of Yahweh has spoken. (Isaiah 1:10).

[dizerner]

A person can be retributively punished for wrongdoing, but that in no sense "pays" for what he has done. What a wrongdoer needs is the means to stop behaving wrongly.

What if the sin calls for death. The wages of sin is death, indeed it is called wages so what's wrong with saying that death is the payment? Someone has to die, for the soul that sins will die. Why are we justified freely? He who knew no sin became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Oh how works religions hate those Scriptures! But either Christ pays the death for our sins by faith, or one day we may be surrounded by religion and Bible verses, but find ourselves in hell, for we were trusting in our good works, and not in Christ's atoning blood!

[willowtree]

Hi Darren,

Thanks for raising the question and for holding our feet to the fire. I have been wrestling with it and want to share a few more comments.

One of the dangers in our understanding of the atonement is that we look at it simply as some kind of divine transaction. Sin created a lot of damage, and someone has to pay. How much was the damage? and what amount must be charged to set the books straight again? So let's get some arrangement in place so we can get things back to normal. I don't want to sound crude but I think this kind of an idea is behind your question. Did the damage that sin created require that God Himself, and nothing less, be the only adequate provision for sin's remedy? If so, then where is the biblical support for this?

The idea of paying for (sin's) damage has strong commercial overtones. The atonement would then become some contractual agreement where the opposing parties (God and the devil) strive to find a common 'price' that will satisfy both and allow man (the victim) to find redress and reconciliation with God. As believers we tend to be quite careless about this, using contractual language to describe our salvation. "Jesus paid it all, all to him I owe..., "He paid the ransom for my sins", we have this debt, that we cannot pay, etc. The Bible is quite careful to avoid this. Jesus statement that the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many," uses the word 'give' not paid, and there is a vast difference between these two terms. Paul contrasts the contract of sin with the gift of salvation in Romans 6:23 "The wages (contract) of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.

The central focus of a contract is the 'price', or in legal terms, 'consideration'. It is the element that holds the contract together, and is essential in any legal contract. A contract, whether buying and selling, hiring an employee, renting a vehicle, etc all revolve around the price. One party makes an offer, the other accepts, a product or service changes hands. Both parties walk away, having no necessary lasting relationship, and each believing they got a good deal. Such is a contract.

The atonement has little in common with this. At the centre of the atonement is a covenant agreement, very different from a contract. A contract can be a very short term arrangement, a covenant is long term. The strength of a contract is the price, the strength of a covenant is the word and commitment of the covenanting parties.

Here is how I see covenant. A covenant is a voluntary agreement between two parties, each of whom commit to each other resources of common usefulness in the assurance and anticipation that the benefits from their pooled resources will greatly exceed the results of their individual efforts. Good marriages are built on this concept, one of the most common forms of covenant in our society.

From this, it can be easily seen that the strength of such an agreement lies in the strength of the commitment each make to each other. There is no middle product of exchange, there is no price. The two parties do not come together, shake hands on a deal and walk away - they both join hands, walk and stay together, pool their resources and see results that are much greater than each could accomplish on their own.

When we look at the atonement from this perspective, we do not look to ask who is paying what to whom, how much is the damage, are both parties getting a good deal. We look at it to observe the intent, quality and determination of the commitment made. We want to see that what we commit to the covenant, is matched by the other party giving at least as much. We want to see some evidence that God is serious, if he is asking us to take up our cross and follow him. We want to know that after we have taken up our cross, facing all kinds of persecutions and setbacks and possibly death, we are still going to come out victorious.

Of course, part of the atonement is at-one-ment. God also does not believe in being unequally yoked together in covenant. If God and man are going to work together, then before they get started, their differences have to be reconciled. But that is just the beginning. There is both wine and bread. This is all about a journey together. They shall be my people and I will be their God.

Christ's death on the cross, from man's perspective - fully representing God, and from God's perspective - fully representing sinful man, Is God's signature on this covenant agreement. He has committed himself to death, because he believes that anything less than that is not worthy of a covenant commitment. And he also knows full well that man's commitment that is anything less than one to the death, is not worth anything either. Nor is there any substitute that can credibly take his place in signing this deal. And there is no shortage of scripture to support these concepts.

Regards, Graeme

[Homer]

How can sins be PAID for? A person can be retributively punished for wrongdoing, but that in no sense "pays" for what he has done.

I think it has been pointed out repeatedly that sins can not be paid for. By us, that is. The wages of sin is death, we have all forfeited our life; we have no life to offer. But Jesus did. That there is a debt owed is made plain by our Lord who used it as a metaphor for sin. Also we see the picture in His parable of the unmerciful servant. And God determined that a sacrifice was required to expiate the debt.

[dizerner]

How can sins be PAID for? God isn't interested in payment for wrong.

And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

"He paid the ransom for my sins", we have this debt, that we cannot pay, etc. The Bible is quite careful to avoid this.

...knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

When we look at the atonement from this perspective, we do not look to ask who is paying what to whom.

And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

To him, the one who loves us, who has freed us from our sins at the cost of his blood.

These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb.

You have been bought and paid for by Christ, so you belong to him.

You are not your own property; you have been bought and paid for.

For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.

Again, God had never wanted sacrifices but obedience.

God commanded sacrifices, this Scripture means something similar to condemning Pharisees for tithing mint and anise and cumin; was tithing ungodly? No, but doing an outward thing while avoiding the heart behind it is. Was sacrificing ungodly? No, but doing an outward thing while avoiding the heart behind it is. Is giving to the poor ungodly? No, but doing an outward thing while avoiding the heart behind it is. "Sacrifice and offering you do not desire" is addressed directly to Christ who was the sacrifice, not to followers of God.

This moralism and works religion really attacks the completed Work of the Cross, which is meant to begin working in us by faith alone, and not by our contribution to the sanctification nor the justification by our efforts, merit, work or will power. Scripture says:
So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.

When we start to believe we have "some good thing" to help out the work of Christi working in us, we've transferred our trust from what Christ has done into what we are doing. This is the hex and spell Paul talked about:

This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

This is why the "Fruit of the Spirit" is attributed to the work of the Holy Spirit through counting ourselves crucified with Christ, and not some meritorious attitudes we muster up with our own efforts. Our old man, our sinful flesh, is fit only to be crucified with Christ and not fixed up by it's attempts at becoming righteous to cross that gap to God's holiness.

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh.
If you want God to truly deal with humanity by a system of moral justice, every last human being will suffer the condemnation of sin.

Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one"

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace

we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

This moralism and works righteousness will not save! All of the spiritual battle is to remove the work of the Cross, and make men replace it with their own efforts!

Thus says the LORD, "Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.' 17"And I set watchmen over you, saying, 'Listen to the sound of the trumpet!' But they said, 'We will not listen.'

[Homer]

Hi Darrin,

You wrote in the 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?

I do not know why you would attach "merely" to God's pleasure unless you mean that there was no other reason. God is determined to accomplish all His pleasure:

Isaiah 46:10 (NASB)

Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things which have not been done,
Saying, ‘My purpose will be established,
And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;

And His pleasure included Jesus' atoning death:

Isaiah 53:10 (NASB)

But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.


Certainly this was planned "before the foundation of the world". IMO you need look no further for an answer.

[jriccitelli]

I took a break, nice to see everyone having a friendly discussion still. I read this thread once, and I wanted to go back to the OP rather than the other posts.

‘… please discuss the Scriptural arguments as to whether it was REQUIRED that God lay down His own life to atone for our sins’ (Darin, in OP)

(I believe the answer was in the original answers because of Darin's wording of the question)
God is not required to do anything, of course (Rather there is scripture to support that God asks Himself and us why He should act even at all! Just as Homer and others have answered). God did not have to save us. Certainly no one or anything can demand anything or require anything of God. Our forgiveness is purely Grace, but it is also Just.

‘I don't think you understand my question. I'm not asking why the atonement was necessary, but rather why such an atonement wouldn't have been effective if it wasn't God Himself who would die. Scriptural argument please. (Darin)

God was not required to make any sacrifice of Himself, or come in human form, it is just Gods grace and Wisdom that He did.

This concept has scriptural support. God did not 'have a requirement' to do it this way (or do anything) that is the amazing grace part / the point / and what makes His sacrifice 'Great'. God does demonstrate vastly 'amazing wisdom and reason' for everything God does, and God confirms this with His own WORD. Many reasons are given as to why God does it this way: mainly for our understanding and to 'move' our heart towards Him. And that God demands death for sin, He demands payment for sins, God demands faith and obedience to His demands, God provides a way, and the way to forgiveness was through the blood sacrifices “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”. The 'greatness' of God: gives great ‘meaning’ to 'His' sacrifice. The greatness of sin demands that there be 'great' meaning in order to justify the forgiveness of such great sin. That should be obvious.

Paidion seems to be missing the point that we are sinners and always will be while in this life. God had to provide a way and reason to justify sinners (past present and future), but the people missed the point. The Israelites had become used to the tradition of offering sacrifices, and even making a spectacle out of it, even supposing that the greatness of 'their' sacrifices pleased God. They forgot that if they were ‘not’ sinners, and had ‘not’ sinned in the first place, then (like Adam and Eve in the Garden originally) there would not be any need for blood sacrifices! But we do have a need, a great need, and that cannot be forgotten and removed.

But man did sin, and man does sin, and man will continue to sin, so there must be a sacrifice in order to give meaning to the Justification of mans redemption. God desires obedience, yes of course, but of course we are sinners, so sacrifice is necessary, and it has been made once and for all. And a sacrifice so GREAT that no other could be justifiably greater, and no sin could be justifiably greater either. And the Greatness of His sacrifice is understood as great love. And God's love is a great reason and meaning to be obedient. This is great wisdom, not a requirement that God be the one who makes the sacrifice. He did say He looked but there was none other to deliver us, so His Own right arm did the saving (And who's arm is your arm? Your own arm)

I do not know why it is hard to understand that 'observing and understanding' great sacrifices induce greater love, greater respect and greater motivation to do the same. The greater Jesus is to you, the greater His sacrifice becomes. What greater sacrifice could possibly be made? How Great is the wisdom and Glory of our justification (that is not a question).

[MMathis]

I don't think it is that difficult to understand that God had to die on the cross to make His point. Had He not died, would there even be Christianity? Would anyone remember Jesus, if not for the cross? That would make a good doctoral dissertation.

Not trying to cause a dust up, but did He have to die? I say yes.

[darinhouston]

My post is really concerning the position that a sin against an infinite God causes an infinte harm to him that can only be repaid by the sacrifice of God Himself.

I didn't want to discuss all the atonement views and whether death was required or payment to be made and to whom, etc. Those are quite interesting, but should be the subject of their own posts.

But, let's look at my OP from a slightly different perspective. The above is assumed, but couldn't one also see that God's Holiness is not so infinite that any harm against it is an infinite harm, but instead that He is so infinite that He can't be truly harmed by a finite man's sin? Even if that sin is so aggregious that it causes harm to all of Creation and all of mankind to follow, couldn't we see God as so strong and Holy and unharmable that such a sin has no discernible effect on Him at all? Why the notion that our sin (great or small) has the capability to harm Him in a way that requires Him to have to come to earth and permit Himself to die?

Not to make God in my image, but I have no other reality to compare than the world around me. When I look at my own relationship with my children, when they act against my counsel it doesn't really harm me. I am sufficiently "above their actions" that it really isn't an affront to me. Of course, I feel the pain and frustration and sometimes even see it as an affront "against me" personally, but that is my own sinful weakness. God doesn't share in that weakness. Compared to my relative position as to my children, couldn't we say that He is likewise (yet infinitely) "above it" that He shouldn't be changed by our sin?