Links to elsewhere on this
Web site: /apologetics.html /book.html /doctrinal.html /essays.html /links.html
/sermonettes.html /webmaster.html
For the home page, click here:
/index.html
For the history page, click
here: /newfile1.html
Why does God Allow
Evil? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Why
Does God Allow Evil 0908.htm
May Christians work on
Saturdays? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Protestant
Rhetoric vs Sabbath Refuted.htm
Should Christians obey the
Old Testament law? /doctrinalhtml/Does
the New Covenant Abolish the OT Law.htm
Do you have an immortal
soul? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Here
and Hereafter.htm
Does the ministry have
authority? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Is
There an Ordained Ministry vs Edwards.html
Is
the United States the Beast? Click
here: /doctrinalhtml/Are
We the Beast vs Collins.htm
Should
you give 10% of your income to your church?
Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Does
the Argument from Silence Abolish the Old Testament Law of Tithing 0205 Mokarow
rebuttal.htm
Is Jesus God? Click here:
/doctrinalhtml/Is
Jesus God.htm /Doctrinalpdf/More
Evidence That Jesus Is God 08.pdf
Will there be a third
resurrection? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Will
There Be a Third Resurrection.htm
Why Did
Jesus Have to Die?
By Eric V.
Snow
Why did Jesus have to die? Why couldn’t God the Father just look down at us humans, and say
(for example), “You’re forgiven if you repent”? Importantly, Jesus had to die, which is the foundation for the
theory of atonement. Let’s briefly
explain below the theory of atonement, which explains why Jesus had to die so
people could be forgiven for their sins.
Unlike the case for the Old Testament’s animal sacrifices, Jesus' sacrifice was
once for all time, and didn't need to be keep being repeated, as is the case
for animals. When a bull, sheep, goat, or dove was sacrificed for the sin
or offense of a man or woman, that sacrifice would need to be repeated if the
sin or offense was repeated. But in the case of Christ's sacrifice, it
covered all human sins for all time for any reason. Interestingly enough, Hebrews 9-10 explains this distinction in detail.
For example, it notes that unlike the Jewish high priest, Jesus' sacrifice
doesn't need to be repeated (Hebrews 9:25-26): "Nor was it to offer
himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood
not his own; for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the
foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end
of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Likewise,
Hebrews 10:12, 14 says: "But when Christ had offered for all time a
single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God . . . For
by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are
sanctified." The blood of God in the flesh is worth far more than
the blood of the animals He created: He could create any number of
them, but He was uncreated and thus of a totally different, and superior,
class. But then, one could ask, Why did the Creator decide to die for His
creatures? We’re return to this puzzle
further below.
Now it’s useful to go through some historical background
from the Old Testament about its animal sacrifices. They had a meaning in forgiving sins that foreshadowed in
predictive type what Jesus would do later. According to Lev. 17:11, blood
symbolized the life force of the creature sacrificed for a man’s
trespasses: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have
given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is
the blood by the reason of the life that makes atonement." The sin
offering which sacrificed a goat (Lev. 17:24-26) had the animal die physically
in order that the man may live spiritually:
And he shall lay his hand on the head of the
male goat, and slay it in the place where they slay the burnt offering before
the Lord; it is a sin offering. Then the priest is to take some of the
blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it on the horns of the altar
of burnt offering; and the rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of
the altar of burnt offering. . . . Thus the priest shall make
atonement for him in regard to his sin, and he shall be forgiven.
But then, why did God use this symbolism?
Why did he want animals to die in the place of people symbolically for their
sins? And why did God want sin, violations of His law (Romans 7:8; 4:15;
5:13), to cause death (Romans 6:23)?
These questions overall relate to the profound issue of the
theory of atonement, about why Jesus had to die. After all, one
theoretically could ask: "Why couldn't
have God the Father looked down from heaven, and say these are the conditions
for atonement, ‘If you confess your sins and repent, you are all
forgiven’”? Why did God Himself, meaning, the Son, have to die for
humanity's sins? Now here we have a truly deep
mystery. The mystery here concerns God's motives for wanting a blood
sacrifice as a condition for forgiveness of violations of His law. And
Scripture by no means fully reveals God's mind on this subject.
Theologians have long argued about the theory of atonement, which concerns the
reasons why God (meaning, Jesus) sacrificed Himself on the cross for the
sins of humanity (see Rev. 13:8). Why was God so insistent on the
principle of a blood sacrifice as a condition for forgiveness for violations of
His law that He was even willing to sacrifice Himself (meaning Jesus, not the
Father) on the cross?
Let’s explain why the human race is in spiritual
debt to God to begin with and the reasons why this is the case. For
example, in Romans 5:1, Paul notes the consequences of Jesus' sacrifice after
Christians have accepted it by faith: "Therefore, having been
justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus
Christ." Verse 10 sounds a similar note: "For if when we
were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more,
having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." So Jesus'
sacrifice served to reconcile humanity to God the Father. Because
of sin, humans are in debt to God, since violating God's law causes an automatic death penalty to be
assessed against us (Romans 3:23): "for all have sinned and fall
short of the glory of God."
So Jesus' sacrifice paid the penalty of the human race's sins to God the
Father. Since God is the Creator, He owns us intrinsically and has the
right to tell us what to God based on His law, which expresses His law.
The theological school of Calvinism proposes
one theory of atonement to answer these kinds of questions. But
here let’s explain one version of the Arminian solution, a rival
theological school to Calvinism, because its explanation is better. Now
because God’s government over the whole universe is subject to His law, the
atonement was necessary. This law is for the good of all. But since
humans have an evil nature, they naturally wish to sin and violate the laws of
God's government, God's kingdom. God has to punish sin for two basic reasons,
instead of arbitrarily letting men and women off. First, in order to
deter the future violations of God's own law for later acts of sin, God's
government has to inflict a formal penalty upon all who violate His law.
By punishing sin, God discourages others in the future from sinning. To
this extent, the theory of morality that’s at the basis of the atonement is a
consequentialist or utilitarian one. That is, it believes punishment
is good at least to the extent it deters future violations of God's
law. But that’s only half the picture.
Second, God also has to inflict a penalty to uphold
justice. Consequently, under God's law, to punish a murderer by
the death penalty is perfectly just, even when it doesn't deter a single future
murder or criminal act. Here a deontological, or duty-oriented, theory of
morality also undergirds the atonement. Fortunately, God's sense of
justice doesn’t require the inflicting of an exact punishment for each act of
sin by every individual human. Otherwise, Jesus would have to have
suffered and had transferred upon Him exactly the penalties for sin as mankind
should have (or did) suffer because of its sins (cf. I Pet. 2:24; II Cor. 5:21;
Gal. 3:13). (This is part of the basis for the Calvinistic doctrine of the
limited atonement, which says Jesus died only for saved Christians, not the
whole world).
Instead, what's required is a sufficiently
great, perfect, and high sacrifice that shows that God's law (which is an
expression of His moral character and nature) is so important to Him that it
can't be casually ignored. A penalty for its violation must be
inflicted. By having the Creator and the Lawgiver die for all men and
women, this bears witness to all the intelligences in the universe (human and
angelic) that God's moral government over all the universe isn't a mere paper
tiger, but has full substance behind it. As the theologian
John Miley comments, while defending the Arminian governmental theory
of the atonement against the Calvinistic theory of satisfaction:
"Nothing could be more fallacious
than the objection that the governmental theory is in any sense
acceptilational, or implicitly indifferent to the character of the substitute
[i.e., Jesus, in this case-EVS] in atonement. In the inevitable
logic of its deepest and most determining principles it excludes all inferior
substitution and requires a divine sacrifice as the only sufficient atonement.
Only such a substitution can give adequate expression to the great truths which
may fulfill the rectoral office of penalty."
So although the Arminian theory of atonement maintains
that God requires a high sacrifice as the ground of atonement, He doesn’t
require an exact act of retribution that would have to be inflicted against
each individual for his or her sins to be charged against the One providing the
basis for atonement.
The story of Zaleucus, a lawgiver and ruler over
an ancient colony of Greeks in southern Italy, helps illustrate how God's
law could require a high but not necessarily fully exact penalty for its
violation. Zaleucus's own son had violated the law, which required as a
penalty the son being made blind. As this case came before Zaleucus himself,
he suffered terrible inner torment since his roles as father and lawgiver
collided. Although even the citizens of the colony were willing to ask
for his son's pardon, he knew as a statesman that eventually the reaction
against letting his son arbitrarily off was that they would accuse him of
partiality and injustice; consequently, in the future his laws would be broken
more. Yet, as a father, he yearned to lessen or eliminate the punishment
for his son. His solution? He gave up one of his own eyes so that
his son would only lose one of his own! Notice that had he paid a sum of
money, or had found someone else to take the penalty for this punishment, his
authority as a statesman and lawgiver would have still been subverted, since
the law and the penalties for its violation weren't then being taken seriously
enough. By giving up one of his own eyes, a crucial piece of his own
body, Zaleucus showed his own high regard for the law and the moral sense
standing behind it.
A theory of atonement that imposes no death
penalty for violations of God's law, such as by imposing
only repentance and acts of charity as the exclusive basis for the
forgiveness of sins, undermines our desire to obey God's law. Such
a theory of atonement subverts the moral justice of God's government by
making an arbitrary, non-costly act of God's will be the basis for forgiving
the sins of humanity. Consequently, the penalty for violating God's law
ultimately becomes trivial. Only by making a great sacrifice, such as Zaleucus’s
for his son, did God demonstrate to all the universe's intelligences that any
violations of His moral government’s law, which expresses His intrinsic moral
character, would not be taken lightly or arbitrarily ignored as He expresses
His great love for humanity.
The theory of atonement relates closely to another deeply
mysterious issue: Why does a good,
almighty God allow evil to exist in His creation? I believe that a major reason for God’s sacrifice of Himself was
God's desire to impress upon all created intelligences, human and angelic, His
love for His creation. Therefore, by dying for created beings, He shows
His love for us, which means we shouldn't doubt his love despite all the pain
and misery that occurs to so many in the world. God didn't want us to
doubt His love while giving us free will that would result in pain and misery
for many as we exercised it. For God is in the process of making beings
like Himself who have 100% free will yet also will choose to be righteous and
obedient to His law 100% of the time. The latter takes time to develop, for its
a matter of settled character that God wants to develop in us and see over
time if we'll manifest it. Jesus' sacrifice also rescued us all from
the death grip of
Satan (Heb. 2:14-15): "Inasmuch then as the children have
partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that
through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is,
the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their
lifetime subject to bondage." Much more could be said on this issue,
but it is very important and relates to the question about why Jesus' blood was
worth more than that of animals.
If the atonement has no ontological foundation (i.e., based
on an absolute moral law), but was a mere arbitrary cancellation of the penalty
of God's law for sin, how can men and women know that God is just in His
actions? How could one know whether or not He will punish sins when they
should be punished? Ultimately, the source of redemption has to be the
Lawgiver Himself, since God's moral laws are intrinsic to His eternal character
and divine nature. Having been the Lawgiver to Israel through Moses,
Jesus was the originator of the Law for humanity. Having been the reason
for its existence, He also could take in His own Person the penalty resulting
from that law, and stand in humanity’s place for it. The one who put the moral
law in motion has to be the Creator, and thus be God. The violation of
the moral law demanded human death as the penalty for its violation.
Consequently, Jesus had to become human to save us by becoming just like
us. He also had to become human in order to die, and to give up His life
temporarily so Christians may live eternally themselves. Although Jesus
was our Creator physically, and thus His life was worth more than all of
humanity's combined, He also had to be the Lawgiver in order to be able to
receive the penalty of sin in His own Person in humanity’s place.
I admit that some of what I've written here is somewhat
speculative, for I can't prove it directly by quoting this or that text from
Scripture. Instead, I'm merely following in the footsteps of theologians
who have pondered this question and proposed answers based in part on their
sense of what God's system of morality is based on and why He takes violations
of it so very seriously.
In conclusion, Jesus had to die in order to provide a solid
foundation for restoring our relationship with God after we broke it by
violating His law by sinning. Only God,
as the origin of the moral law, could release us from the penalty of that
law. Furthermore, since God’s
sufferings on the cross were so mysteriously great, it also reminds us to avoid
thinking God doesn’t understand the pains and trials in our own lives. Jesus didn’t just die for our sins, but He
suffered greatly while dying for us.
Let us always be thankful that God loved us so much as to pay such a
high price to redeem us, as Paul felt so deeply emotionally: “O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of
death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ
our Lord!” (Romans 7:24-25).
Click here to access essays that defend Christianity: /apologetics.html
Click here to access essays that explain Christian
teachings: /doctrinal.html
Click here to access notes for sermonettes: /sermonettes.html
Does Islam cause terrorism?
Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Moral Equivalency Applied Islamic
History 0409.htm
Is the Bible God’s Word?
Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Is the Bible the Word of
God.htm
Why does God Allow Evil?
Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Why Does God Allow Evil
0908.htm
Is Christian teaching from ancient paganism? /Bookhtml/Paganism influence issue article
Journal 013003.htm
Which is right?:
Judaism or Christianity? /Apologeticshtml/Is Christianity a Fraud vs
Conder Round 1.htm
/Apologeticshtml/Is Christianity a Fraud vs
Conder Round 2.htm
Should God’s existence be proven? /Apologeticshtml/Should the Bible and God Be
Proven Fideism vs WCG.htm
Does the Bible teach blind faith? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Gospel of John Theory of
Knowledge.htm
Links to elsewhere on this Web site: /apologetics.html /book.html /doctrinal.html /essays.html /links.html
/sermonettes.html /webmaster.html For
the home page, click here: /index.html For the
history page, click here: /newfile1.html