If more recognized Him, then the results would have been better.
If they didn’t kill Him, then the results would have been even better.
Perhaps with His unrelenting opposition to evil, someone would have killed Him eventually. But no I don’t buy into any of this right way and wrong way nonsense – as if Christianity as it is represents some essential necessity. LOL
But if nobody killed Him ever, then the results would have been fabulous! God walking among us is a good thing. Not killing innocent people is always a good thing. And talk otherwise is a very good reason why so many people cannot see anything of value in Christianity.
I know that we’ve learned to recite this until it blends into “seamless orthodoxy” in our minds, but I tend to push back some with Mitchell here. Maybe here is a way to look at it a bit differently. Jesus “had to die” in the same way that a soldier “has to die” when rescuing somebody. The job was so dangerous, but the soldier did it anyway knowing it would cost him/her their very life. And yet they still chose to do it. And this soldier (Jesus) accomplishes that mission. But it was still our evil violence that killed him. It wasn’t the fact that the soldier had evil done to them that suddenly makes the mission accomplished, but what the living soldier did (and now continues to do) that saves us. That Jesus was willing to die - and did! - does show us his power, even over death! Which is in itself very significant! But it is his righteousness that saves us, not our evil deeds. So yes - Jesus died for us in the sense that he didn’t let our violent evil against him prevent him from coming to live among us, loving and forgiving us anyway. I think we can say along with so many that he died for us, but it may be even more biblically supported to say that he lived (lives) for us, and that he is our very life. Otherwise we would be forced to think that (if it was just his murder that was the important thing), then we could boast that our own evil violence helped effect our salvation by putting Christ on the cross where we (and some of our theologies) insist he belonged at that moment. But this view then forces us to adopt a monstrous view of God that seems highly against biblical narrative. I’d rather think that Peter got it right instead when he declared (Acts 2:23) that wicked people killed (murdered) Jesus. Yes - it was with God’s foreknowledge, but that is different than saying with God’s approval (much less agency!) Otherwise we would have to say that these wicked men helped accomplished our salvation by putting Jesus where he needed to be. But we don’t read or see that. And the God of Christ does not participate in our wickedness. At least that’s what I see in the prophets and later apostles. Jesus did not have a violent Dad. He had a dad that any prodigal could run to, and even though a prodigal may quake with fear having full knowledge of his own sins and just deserts, we the audience to that story know that in his Father’s loving, welcoming arms is the safest place in the world that any sinner can actually be! Theologies that would defeat that story or circumscribe the Father’s scandalous grace tend to come from the disapproving older brothers, themselves showcased in the very same tale. In the end it is they who remain outside, unwilling to come in to the Father’s presence and joy.
I am sorry, I knoow you distaste of this side of Christianity but…
The whole point was to stop all the sacrificing that has gone before and replace them with one, very personal (to God) sacrifice. It is as much symbolic as it was real. It is what the death (and resurrection) meant that counts.
Perhaps there was another way? Not within the framework God had set. It relied on the established animal sacrifice system.
John 10:10 I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly
John 18:37 I was born and came into the world for this one purpose, to speak about the truth.
John 9:39 For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.
Mark 10:45 (Matthew 20:28) For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Many say they are determined give their lives for others. It is not the same as saying they went/came/intend to die.
And no the prophets said no such thing either.
Not within the weakness of his disciples (falling asleep in the garden), or the demands and attitudes of the people shouting “crucify him” maybe. But within the ideals and hopes of Jesus (who is God) praying in the Garden, I think the answer is yes.
Sort of. Say rather that it was to end the sacrificial system (the scapegoating system) and to reveal it for what it really is. It was not something that could save us.
Jesus gave His life for our salvation in the same way that soldiers have given their lives for our freedom. Yes.
But this idea that God demands an innocent person die in order to have mercy on the guilty. That is not only absurd but disgusting. (I am reminded of that lady in the Stephen King novella/movie “The Mist”, which shows that for most people this understanding of Christianity = horror)
Rather it is the sinful man who refuses to change until they see their actions bringing about the death of an innocent! Now THAT I believe!!!
Good thoughts, but if Jesus had not been crucified, then no one would have paid the debt we owe and we would be dead in our sins, eventually. Complicated yes!
I don’t believe in all that debt/ransom/payment stuff (except as a metaphor). I don’t believe forgiveness is so difficult for God that He needs some kind magic spell or ritual to do so. What I believe… is that cheap forgiveness doesn’t work. All that accomplishes is for people to think they can do whatever they want – no consequences. What I believe… is that the real consequences of sin cannot be escaped. God can help with them sure. What I believe… is heaven and hell is not about forgiveness or escaping the consequences of our sins, but about being willing to change and accepting God’s help to do so.
So why say Jesus died for our sins? Why thank Jesus for the cross? Because it is forgiveness which is as far from cheap as you can get. It gets the right message across. We have to change because that is what sin does. It kills the innocent. It kills the one who came to save us. And that is certainly NOT a good thing. Judas is NOT the hero of that tale, because bringing about the death of Jesus is NOT a good thing. Sure Jesus was willing. God gives everything, holding nothing back.
I read what you wrote, then I commented on the part I chose.
I thought about commenting on what you wrote about “soon,” even looked up the Greek word and considered posting its meaning, but I decided that the answers to the questions I wrote would be more helpful. I also considered mentioning the controversy around 2 Peter, but-again-the answers to my questions would be more helpful.
I am well aware of Metzger’s comments and those of Eusebius. I have both books here at home.
I forget the name, but there was a heresy that taught this, that the only reason He came was to die. It didn’t last long since it couldn’t explain why Jesus spent three years teaching.
Why is it monstrous that death got broken by having to deal with someone Who was Life itself? or that sin got nailed to the Cross?
God used wicked people to punish Israel and other nations regularly.
Luke is pretty clear that the death of the Christ was necessary – "ἔδει (EH-dei plus an infinitive indicates something either necessary or obligatory.
Dad wasn’t the enemy. I think it was John Bright (or maybe Ernest Wright with his “divine warrior” theme) who explained the Cross as Jesus the Son “taking the side of His people” to fight for humanity, with the approval of the Father as “general of armies”.
More accurately, it was to remedy the situation that called for sacrifices in the first place: those merely set aside (“covered”) the death penalty of sin, the Cross went farther and “killed” death and sin.
Which rested on the warning, “you shall surely die”. Paul makes clear that death was an enemy that had to be defeated. That fits with Luke’s report of Jesus saying it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and die.
But He did – He explained to the disciples that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and die. It’s inherent in why Jesus “set His face” to go to Jerusalem, and as you noted:
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Right there it’s plain He came to die.
Good distinction.
What’s fascinating is that the entire OT sacrificial system rested on Christ’s sacrifice as its foundation, since the OT system “was not something that could save us”; it only functioned as place-holder until the real thing happened.
It’s far more than that: the soldier’s death does not let me avoid death, nor dies it pay for my wrongdoing. The soldier’s death is like the OT sacrifices, a temporary thing that has to be repeated; Christ’s death was not just happenstance but was necessary.
FWIW that’s exactly what happened:
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous.
Was that necessary? Well, no one who was himself guilty could die for anyone else, so who else could die for the guilty but someone totally innocent?
It’s critical to frame things within the worldview God built up patiently over the OT period before shifting to another view. The church Fathers who wrote that Christ broke death – as though, to use modern imagery, death was some vast machine that shattered when it “bit down” – were much closer to the ancient Hebrew worldview that carries into the NT scriptures; one also wrote that Christ put an end to punishment by breaking it because punishment couldn’t break Him. The latter is something that could only happen to someone who was innocent!
There is a tendency to impose a modern worldview where laws are just arbitrary things, a concept that doesn’t fit the scriptures at all especially where the death of Christ is concerned. We have to treat the scriptures as the human literature they are, grasping them in their conceptual framework, before we go making our own explanations or illustrations of things. In their framework, sin and death are pretty much some sort of entities in their own right, things that can enslave, rule, crush, be defeated, etc.; in that framework the idea of an innocent person dying for the guilty makes perfect sense because only someone untouched (and untouchable?) by sin and/or death could defeat them since anyone else would already by under their power.
In the terms of the scriptural worldview, the death of Christ isn’t some arbitrary action with artificially decreed results, it’s a metaphysical event that altered reality (back towards the original intention).
I believe it was mankind, just like that crowd shouting “crucify Him,” who demanded that God give His son to die for them. How typical of childish human being to say, “ok if you love me then prove it!”
Both of what is true?
That God is a good guy who loves us AND God is a mobster using patsies and racketeering as his model for salvation? (reminds me of George Carlin’s skit on religion and God)
well… because… if that were true then I would not be a Christian. I would join the opposition.
Thanks for the thoughts, Mitchell. You are right—“God gives everything, holding nothing back.” But then there is “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Hebrews 9:22) Jesus did that because we are unable to do these things for ourselves…I have always liked the image of the shepherd looking for a lost sheep. It may sound too much like a cheap painting on the wall in Sunday school, but it works.
17And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, 18“See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death 19and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.”
A Mother’s Request
20Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. 21And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” 22Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 24And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. 25But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,c27and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,d28even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Yes. It was composed by encultured humans in human languages at specific points in human history. Definitely human literature. Plus some personal mail and historical records, which I don’t think really count as “literature” in the literary craft sense.
Put it back in context: “under the law.” Yes, that was the law. No, it is not true that God cannot forgive anything without seeing some blood, like some god of the Aztecs. So why was this the law? Because cheap forgiveness is very bad idea. Yes there is a reason. But religionists like to legalize everything so they can play the lawyer and twist the law for their own power. But it is not about law. That is a distortion and very much not worth believing in at all.
Yes. And it says nothing about the Christ or even the Son of Man. There is nothing in the text to connect this with Jesus and that is not what the Israelites understood this to be about.
This and many of these passages are after the fact. They made it fit by killing Him.
But this is precisely my point. The demand for His death came from us not from God. It is we who will not repent and change until the innocent die. It is not God who demands that the innocent pay for the crimes of the guilty.
Yes and that is why I said 90% from God. I still say the Bible is the word of God, written by Him. But it was using the very poor instruments of encultured human beings and human languages. Yes, He got His message across, and nobody should think they can do it better than He did. But it is not like God wrote it directly with any kind of perfection.