Redemption in Spite of the Cross: My View About the Cross and God’s Fo

October 3, 2012

One of the most enigmatic questions connected with the Christian faith is: Why did Jesus die? The most common answer is: He offered his life that we might have forgiveness for our sins. He paid the penalty for our sin and rebellion. This answer contains a precious kernel of truth, but it does not tell the entire story of redemption, and it threatens to blame God for the death of Jesus. Why not consider that we have access to forgiveness and redemption in spite of the cross?

Some Problems with the Christian View of the Atonement

Did God plan the crucifixion of Jesus Christ? Was this a requirement for the forgiveness he wanted to offer to sinners? Is it true that God could not forgive our sins unless someone paid the price for our redemption? Did God say: “I want to forgive, but I cannot unless the price is paid. This is what I will do: I will send my Son, and if humans agree to kill him, then the price of the penitent sinner will have been paid, and I will be free to offer forgiveness to him!”

If this is true, then it logically follows that it was God who masterminded the death of his Son, and the blame for the death of Jesus is partially shifted from humans and the Devil to God. God becomes an accomplice to the greatest injustice ever committed in human history, and the Devil deserves some credit for the forgiveness offered to sinners.

The True Meaning of Forgiveness

Is there an alternative explanation for the death of Jesus? I believe there is, but before I try to explain my view of this controversial issue, let me comment on the true nature of forgiveness. My dictionary defines forgiveness as the forfeiture for the payment of a debt. If this definition of forgiveness is correct, this means that forgiveness is granted without the payment of the moral debt.

Let me illustrate this as follows. Suppose I am guilty of a moving violation and a friend of mine volunteers to pay the court imposed monetary fine. Would it make sense for the judge to say to me: “I have decided to forgive you for your infraction because your friend has already paid the fine”? How can God grant forgiveness and then demand the payment of the penalty? Doesn’t the payment of the penalty destroy the true meaning of forgiveness? Doesn’t genuine forgiveness make the payment of the debt unnecessary and superfluous?

Contrast Between Civil and Criminal Law

This suggests that the legal theory of atonement makes no logical sense; but there is more, it also violates our understanding of criminal law. If I am guilty of a civil offense, the law allows for anybody to pay the fine for my infraction; but if I am guilty of murder, no one is allowed to pay for my crime. I am the only one who must suffer the consequence of my action.

The Problem with Prophetic Predictions

How can we get out of this dilemma? Can God offer true forgiveness without the payment of the penalty? Could God offer forgiveness without the death of Jesus Christ? Would there have been hope for the human race in the event the Jews had refused to kill their Messiah? Was not the death of Jesus predicted in Scripture?

The answer to this question is “Yes,” the suffering and death of the Jewish Messiah was predicted, but it was also predicted that he would sit on King David’s throne and that God’s chosen nation would enjoy an incredible prosperity and a glorious future under the rule of the Jewish rightful Messiah and King. How can we interpret these apparently contradictory predictions about the future of the Jewish Messiah and the destiny of the Jewish nation?

Contingent Prophetical Predictions

The answer lies in the nature of predictive prophesy. We see this illustrated in the classic case found in the book of Jonah the prophet. God predicted the total destruction of the sinful city of Nineveh, but the prediction failed because the people repented of their sin. This means that God’s warnings and promises are contingent on human response.

Another example is found in the promise God made to the house of priest Eli, who failed in disciplining his sons in the performance of the sacred work connected with the Sanctuary and God’s promise to him and his posterity was voided by the Lord:

Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: 'I promised that your house and your father's house would minister before me forever.' But now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained. [1 Sam.2:30]

The principle implied in this story is that what the Lord promises is subject to the fidelity of those the Lord is planning to bless. The prediction is not set in concrete, but rather contingent on human behavior. God’s promises and threatening are dependent on the future behavior of his children and his prophetic predictions are conditional and subject to change in response to human conduct.

This basic truth is also seen in the promises made to the children of Israel when they were ready to enter into the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua. Their future would be subject to their behavior, and their checkered history attests to the truthfulness of this fact.

Afterward, Joshua read all the words of the law--the blessings and the curses--just as it is written in the Book of the Law. [Jos. 8:34]

Applying the Contingency Principle to the Life of Jesus Christ

Can we apply this basic principle of correct biblical interpretation to the life and death of Jesus Christ and to the predictions made about the future of the Jewish Messiah and King? I believe we can, and we should. On one hand we find in the Old Testament promises of a glorious future for God’s chosen nation under the leadership of the promised Messiah; on the other hand we have the prediction of his suffering and death.

Likewise we find apparently contradictory predictions about the future of the baby which would be born to Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus. Here is one of them taken from the first chapter of Luke:

New International Version 1984

________________________________________

30But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.

Jesus was destined to be crowned as King of the Jewish nation and sit on David’s throne. But notice that in chapter 2 of the same book a totally different outcome was predicted for Jesus Christ:

New International Version 1984

________________________________________

34Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, 35so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.

The Choice Between Two Alternative Futures

In one case the Jewish Messiah was expected to be crowned as the King of the Jews, but in the other one a sword would pierce the heart of Mary. How could this be? How can we explain such diverse fulfillment of what was promised? Here is my answer: Both predictions were contingent on the human response of those who had been chosen by God to be his representatives on earth. The Jewish leaders were free to choose one of the two alternatives.

Had they chosen to welcome Jesus as the promised Messiah, Jesus would have been crowned as their King, and, according the Ellen White, Jerusalem would have eventually become the capital of the entire world. And let’s not forget that when the people welcomed Jesus on the occasion of his triumphal entry to Jerusalem, Jesus apparently was ready to act as their King. His first act as their King was to cleanse the Jewish Temple.

The Jewish Leaders’ Choice

What was the Jewish rulers’ reaction to Jesus claim to his father David’s throne? They demanded his death and with this action they sealed their nation’s destiny. The Romans eventually came and destroyed the city and the Temple they had in such high esteem.

This explains Jesus enigmatic behavior following his triumphal entry into the city of Jerusalem. Instead of rejoicing with the people who were shouting Hossanahs, he wept over the sacred city with a sad lament:

New International Version 1984

________________________________________41As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.

Thus the glorious future promised to Israel under the rulership of their Messiah did not materialize and the city of Jerusalem was destroyed a few decades later. The sacred Temple was razed to the ground, and it is estimated that one million people perished as a result of the wrong choice made by the Jewish leaders.

Who Masterminded the Crucifixion of Jesus?

What can we say about the reason for the death of Jesus? Was this masterminded by God in his attempt to find a legal way to be able to offer forgiveness to repentant sinners, or was this the outcome of the free choice made by the leaders of the Jewish nation who were under the malefic power of the Devil, that Old Serpent, who was a deceiver and a murderer from the beginning?

We Christians usually show a preference to the legal view of the atonement. We teach that God could not offer true and genuine forgiveness without the payment of the penalty for their guilt forgetting that true forgiveness cancels such payment. If God needed the death of the most innocent being in the universe to enable him to forgive repentant sinners, then why all the effort made by God and Jesus to convince the Jewish leaders that he was the true Messiah?

Think about all the miracles he performed with this objective in mind. He healed the sick, he fed multitudes with a few loaves of bread, he walked on water, he raised the death, and he came from the tomb followed his death. On top of this, God sent an angel to Pilate’s wife warning him not to condemn an innocent man to his death. This is evidence, I believe that the one responsible for the plan to have Jesus killed was not God, but rather his archenemy. It is high time that we stop blaming God for the suffering and death of God’ Son.

What About the Texts Connecting Jesus’ Blood to Forgiveness?

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. [Matt. 26:28]

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace. [Eph. 1:7]

The Blood of Jesus a Symbol for his Words

Following the feeding of the multitude, Jesus made a spiritual declaration to those who followed after him motivated by the expectation of material blessings which his listeners misinterpreted.

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. [John 6:53]

The people were not interested in spiritual blessing, for which reason they interpreted Jesus’ statements in a literal manner. Then Jesus explained to them the spiritual meaning of the blood symbol:

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. [John 6:63]

The power to cleanse the soul from sin did not reside in the blood of Jesus, but rather in his words, the same words which brought the world into existence. The words which created the first Adam, could recreate the human soul in his own image one more time. The blood was a mere symbol of said powerful words Jesus had spoken to them. This is the reason Jesus could say before his death:

You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. [John 15:3]

This is a clear evidence that the power to cleanse the human soul moral pollution does not reside in the physical drops of blood Jesus shed on Calvary, but rather in the creative power of the one who brought our world into existence. And this is also the reason that Jesus could say to the paralytic before his crucifixion: “Your sins are forgiven.”

The Parable of the Vineyard

I believe that we can learn from the parable of the vineyard. The owner of a vineyard had rented it to tenants and when it was harvest time he sent his servants to collect the rent. They were mistreated, so the man decided to send his own son thinking that those evil men would show some respect to him. The tenants instead decided to kill him with the hope of remaining in possession of the vineyard.

The lesson I want to draw from this parable is: The owner of the vineyard did not say: I am sending my son with the hope that those evil men will kill him but rather with the expectation that his tenants would show respect to him. This illustrates to me that God was not hoping that the Jewish leaders would kill Jesus, but rather that they would treat him out of respect towards God.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son

We can draw a similar lesson from the parable of the prodigal son. When the repentant son came back home, the father did not say to him: “Wait a minute! In order for me to forgive you for your offense, we need to take care of some legal matters. We will need to punish your little brother for your sin and then I’ll be legally able to forgive you and take you back as my son.”

If suffering was the price for sin, then the father had already suffered more than enough during his son’s absence. Love causes pain and anguish when a son rebels and leaves the security of his home. Pain and suffering is the natural result of love when there is a rupture in the loving relationship between a father and his children.

Ellen White’s View of the Atonement

Someone stated that we can find in the writings of Ellen White all the theories of atonement ever advanced by theologians. Here is one of them which resonated with what I am suggesting in this paper:

Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ's agony; but that suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God. Every departure from the right, every deed of cruelty, every failure of humanity to reach His ideal, brings grief to Him. When there came upon Israel the calamities that were the sure result of separation from God,--subjugation by their enemies, cruelty, and death, --it is said that "His soul was grieved for the misery of Israel." "In all their affliction He was afflicted: . . . and He bare them, and carried them all the days of old. Judges 10:16; Isaiah 63:9. {Ed 263.1}

I conclude from this that if we were to add all the pain God was subjected to as a result of the accumulated evil in the world since the fall of Adam and Eve, then if suffering is the result of God’s love towards his children, God must have suffered more than enough since the inception of sin and rebellion, and there was no legal requirement to add to this the physical suffering of God’s Son in order to pay the penalty for sin and offer forgiveness to sinners.

If the Law demanded payment of the debt in terms of suffering, then the cross represented an overpayment for the guilt of sin, since by the time Jesus was born in Bethlehem, God had suffered more than enough as a result of rebellion and pain experienced by those he created for his glory.

October 3, 2012

Interesting thoughts Nic. For me, I think many answers will be answered at the 2nd coming or some time after, probably after when we will be able to ask about things that were puzzling to us.

October 5, 2012

Lot of info there Nick to think on and I will add a bit to what you bring out here in this,

Quote,

"The answer to this question is “Yes,” the suffering and death of the Jewish Messiah was predicted, but it was also predicted that he would sit on King David’s throne and that God’s chosen nation would enjoy an incredible prosperity and a glorious future under the rule of the Jewish rightful Messiah and King. How can we interpret these apparently contradictory predictions about the future of the Jewish Messiah and the destiny of the Jewish nation?

Does this answer the question?

Ro 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Ro 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Ga 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

October 6, 2012

I just discovered that Spoectrum published a similar article dealing with the atonement entitled "Is Penal Substitution Theology Modern Baal Worship?" The main difference between said article and mine is that I did try to answer the enigma with statements from the Bible and the writings of Ellen White.

Raising a question dealing with the most fundamental dogma of the Christian church involves a certain amount of risk, but trying to solve the problem in a non-traditiomal manner is even more risky.

Dr. Graham Maxwell, the late renowned Adventist theologian and author of several books, used to raise questions like these about the reason for the death of Jesus, but he never went as far as proposing the solution I have detailed in the introduction to this blog.

I wish that those who share the traditional view of the cross would take the time to tell me why they stick to a theory which places part of the blame for the death of Jesus on God. If God demanded that the greatest injustice be committed in order to solve the sin problem, then he must have been an accomplice to the murder of the Jewish Messiah.

October 6, 2012

I agree with you that God the Father did not require his Son to be crucified in order to remove the condemnation of the law from the human race, otherwise known as "redemption". The cruelties that Jesus suffered because the Jewish leaders rejected him, and those ultimately inflicted by the Romans, were prompted by Satan's hatred of Jesus and in a last ditch attempt to thwart the plan of redemption by destroying Jesus' faith in the "plan" and in his Father's acceptance of his sacrifice. Didn't Jesus, in fact, feel abandoned by his Father? (Matt. 27:46) THAT is what God had to inflict upon his Son because eternal death (the law's penalty for sin) IS God-abandonment. Even though in reality God did not abandon his Son, Jesus in his humanity was not able to discern the presence of his Father, thus he suffered what every unbeliever will eventually suffer.

While the atrocities of the cross were not God's doings, the law demanded death for every infraction. Hebrews 9:22 - "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Therefore, no matter if the Jews had accepted Jesus as their Messiah, he could not have set up an earthly kingdom at that time. Jesus came to give the world life, and he could only do that by dying. The death penalty (not just the "sleep" death, but eternal death) was demanded for every infraction of the ten commandments, from Adam's sin to the last sin committed before probation closes. Death was required because God couldn't go against his own laws. Someone had to die. Didn't the countless sacrificial animals God required daily, monthly and yearly point to a "substitutionary" death as well? If God could/would "forgive" their sins without inflicting the penalty, why all the animal carnage?

You correctly state that in a court of law, one person cannot die for another. I don't believe that that is what happened at the cross, however. I believe that just as the whole human race was created in Adam (and thus sinned in Adam) so the whole human race was placed in Christ at his incarnation and thus the whole human race died in Christ. Therefore, rather than being substitutionary, Christ's death was corporate, reconciling the whole world to God and fulfilling the law's demands, which is why there is no condemnation for anyone who chooses to remain in Christ by accepting the gift of salvation. Baptism signifies this: the "old man" dying to sin and the "new creature" being resurrected to eternal life. Sin requires death. Romans 6:23 - "For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

October 6, 2012

I agree with you that God the Father did not require his Son to be crucified in order to remove the condemnation of the law from the human race, otherwise known as "redemption". The cruelties that Jesus suffered because the Jewish leaders rejected him, and those ultimately inflicted by the Romans, were prompted by Satan's hatred of Jesus and in a last ditch attempt to thwart the plan of redemption by destroying Jesus' faith in the "plan" and in his Father's acceptance of his sacrifice. Didn't Jesus, in fact, feel abandoned by his Father? (Matt. 27:46) THAT is what God had to inflict upon his Son because eternal death (the law's penalty for sin) IS God-abandonment. Even though in reality God did not abandon his Son, Jesus in his humanity was not able to discern the presence of his Father, thus he suffered what every unbeliever will eventually suffer.

While the atrocities of the cross were not God's doings, the law demanded death for every infraction. Hebrews 9:22 - "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Therefore, no matter if the Jews had accepted Jesus as their Messiah, he could not have set up an earthly kingdom at that time. Jesus came to give the world life, and he could only do that by dying. The death penalty (not just the "sleep" death, but eternal death) was demanded for every infraction of the ten commandments, from Adam's sin to the last sin committed before probation closes. Death was required because God couldn't go against his own laws. Someone had to die. Didn't the countless sacrificial animals God required daily, monthly and yearly point to a "substitutionary" death as well? If God could/would "forgive" their sins without inflicting the penalty, why all the animal carnage?

You correctly state that in a court of law, one person cannot die for another. I don't believe that that is what happened at the cross, however. I believe that just as the whole human race was created in Adam (and thus sinned in Adam) so the whole human race was placed in Christ at his incarnation and thus the whole human race died in Christ. Therefore, rather than being substitutionary, Christ's death was corporate, reconciling the whole world to God and fulfilling the law's demands, which is why there is no condemnation for anyone who chooses to remain in Christ by accepting the gift of salvation. Baptism signifies this: the "old man" dying to sin and the "new creature" being resurrected to eternal life. Sin requires death. Romans 6:23 - "For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

very much. That's exactly the way I've always been taught.

October 6, 2012

The Blood of Jesus a Symbol for his Words

The blood of Jesus is a symbol of His life that He voluntarily gave up for us, not merely of His words.

Leviticus 17:14

For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.

Matthew 26:27-28

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; [28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed [poured out] for many for the remission of sins.

Matthew 20:28

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Isaiah 53:12

Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,

and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,

because he poured out his life [lit. "soul"] to death

and was numbered with the transgressors;

yet he bore the sin of many,

and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Quote:

The Lord has purchased his people for himself, and has manifested his love toward them by the greatest possible evidence, even by shedding his blood and yielding his life on Calvary. {ST, August 19, 1889 par. 1}

Quote:

This heifer was to be red without spot, which was a symbol of blood. It must be without blemish, and one that had never borne a yoke. Here again Christ was typified. The Son of God came voluntarily to accomplish the work of atonement. There was no obligatory yoke upon him, for he was independent and above all law. The angels, as God's intelligent messengers, were under the yoke of obligation; no personal sacrifice of theirs could atone for the guilt of fallen man. Christ alone was free from the claims of the law to undertake the redemption of the sinful race. He had power to lay down his life and to take it up again. "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." {RH, January 9, 1883 par. 3}

Quote:

He was hated by evil men because his character was spotless, his works righteous. He came as the Redeemer of the world; yet he was taken by cruel hands, and shamefully entreated and crucified. God raised him from the dead, and he ascended to Heaven to plead his blood as the propitiation for our sins. {ST, March 10, 1887 par. 3}

QUESTION: Would it be correct to say that Christ pleads His words as the propitiation for our sins?

Of course not.

Christ pleads His blood (i.e., sacrificial, perfect life) as the propitiation for our sins. His words were only one part of that perfect life.

October 6, 2012

....Did God plan the crucifixion of Jesus Christ? Was this a requirement for the forgiveness he wanted to offer to sinners?

Let's let the Bible and Ellen G. White give us the answer:

Luke 24:44-45

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. [45] Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

Acts 2:23

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Acts 3:17-18

"And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. [18] But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled."

Quote:

The Son of God, heaven's glorious Commander, was touched with pity for the fallen race. His heart was moved with infinite compassion as the woes of the lost world rose up before Him. But divine love had conceived a plan whereby man might be redeemed. The broken law of God demanded the life of the sinner. In all the universe there was but one who could, in behalf of man, satisfy its claims. Since the divine law is as sacred as God Himself, only one equal with God could make atonement for its transgression. None but Christ could redeem fallen man from the curse of the law and bring him again into harmony with Heaven. Christ would take upon Himself the guilt and shame of sin--sin so offensive to a holy God that it must separate the Father and His Son. Christ would reach to the depths of misery to rescue the ruined race. {PP 63.2}
Before the Father He pleaded in the sinner's behalf, while the host of heaven awaited the result with an intensity of interest that words cannot express. Long continued was that mysterious communing--"the counsel of peace" (Zechariah 6:13) for the fallen sons of men. The plan of salvation had been laid before the creation of the earth; for Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8); yet it was a struggle, even with the King of the universe, to yield up His Son to die for the guilty race. But "God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. Oh, the mystery of

64

redemption! the love of God for a world that did not love Him! Who can know the depths of that love which "passeth knowledge"? Through endless ages immortal minds, seeking to comprehend the mystery of that incomprehensible love, will wonder and adore. {PP 63.3}

God was to be manifest in Christ, "reconciling the world unto Himself." 2 Corinthians 5:19. Man had become so degraded by sin that it was impossible for him, in himself, to come into harmony with Him whose nature is purity and goodness. But Christ, after having redeemed man from the condemnation of the law, could impart divine power to unite with human effort. Thus by repentance toward God and faith in Christ the fallen children of Adam might once more become "sons of God." 1 John 3:2. {PP 64.1}

The plan by which alone man's salvation could be secured, involved all heaven in its infinite sacrifice. The angels could not rejoice as Christ opened before them the plan of redemption, for they saw that man's salvation must cost their loved Commander unutterable woe. In grief and wonder they listened to His words as He told them how He must descend from heaven's purity and peace, its joy and glory and immortal life, and come in contact with the degradation of earth, to endure its sorrow, shame, and death. He was to stand between the sinner and the penalty of sin; yet few would receive Him as the Son of God. He would leave His high position as the Majesty of heaven, appear upon earth and humble Himself as a man, and by His own experience become acquainted with the sorrows and temptations which man would have to endure. All this would be necessary in order that He might be able to succor them that should be tempted. Hebrews 2:18. When His mission as a teacher should be ended, He must be delivered into the hands of wicked men and be subjected to every insult and torture that Satan could inspire them to inflict. He must die the cruelest of deaths, lifted up between the heavens and the earth as a guilty sinner. He must pass long hours of agony so terrible that angels could not look upon it, but would veil their faces from the sight. He must endure anguish of soul, the hiding of His Father's face, while the guilt of transgression--the weight of the sins of the whole world--should be upon Him. {PP 64.2}

The angels prostrated themselves at the feet of their Commander and offered to become a sacrifice for man. But an angel's

65

life could not pay the debt; only He who created man had power to redeem him. Yet the angels were to have a part to act in the plan of redemption. Christ was to be made "a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death." Hebrews 2:9. As He should take human nature upon Him, His strength would not be equal to theirs, and they were to minister to Him, to strengthen and soothe Him under His sufferings. They were also to be ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who should be heirs of salvation. Hebrews 1:14. They would guard the subjects of grace from the power of evil angels and from the darkness constantly thrown around them by Satan. {PP 64.3}

October 6, 2012

One of the most enigmatic questions connected with the Christian faith is: Why did Jesus die?

Would God have allowed His beloved Son to be killed in that horrorific way if there had been some other means of saving mankind?

I think the very fact that Christ died shows that it was the only way our salvation could be accomplished.

That view appears clearly to be supported by the following Scriptures, to mention only a couple:

Luke 24:44-45

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. [45] Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

Acts 2:23

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

October 9, 2012

Hi Nic,

Maybe this word from the Son of God may help in the discussion?

John 10:17-18

“Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”

It appears that no creature “killed” the Son of God in payment for a debt owed to the “the law”. From this text we can learn that He killed Himself! That is, He as God killed “the Son of man”.

October 11, 2012

Hi Nic,

Here’s some more on my previous post. I believe you have the kernel of a great and staggering new/old truth which has immense implications for us as a people.

The heathen view is that God needs a sacrifice to “pay off” a debt and this is based on a misunderstanding of the law. It is NOT a separate entity as the legal faction in the church would like us to think, but a “transcript of His character”.

{GC 434.1}

The law of God, being a revelation of His will, a transcript of His character, must forever endure, "as a faithful witness in heaven." Not one command has been annulled; not a jot or tittle has been changed. Says the psalmist: "Forever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven." "All His commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever." Psalm 119:89; 111:7, 8.

Therefore He is the law!! Is He then demanding the sacrifice? As you rightly say, No! No!

Two things which may be of help to us in this forum:

1. We should relax and allow the Spirit to show us what He wants us to know, not try to figure it out ourselves.

2. Check what He has already told us:

Here’s one from an early pioneer which I have in my possession. The paraphrases have been added by the publishers.

THE DAY-STAR EXTRA Saturday, February 7, 1846.

The article on the Sanctuary by O. R. L. Crozier

***************(Begin Quote)

But again, they say the atonement was made and finished on Calvary, when the Lamb of God expired. So men have taught us, and so the churches and world believe; but it is none the more true or sacred on that account, if unsupported by Divine authority. Perhaps few or none who hold that opinion have ever tested the foundation on which it rests.

1. If the atonement was made on Calvary, by whom was it made? The making of the atonement is the work of a Priest? but who officiated on Calvary? - Roman soldiers and wicked Jews.

2. The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement:

the sinner slew the victim, Leviticus 4:1-4, 13-15. etc., after that the Priest took the blood and made the atonement. Leviticus 4:5-12, 16-21.

3. Christ was the appointed High priest to make the atonement, and he certainly could not have acted in that capacity till after his resurrection, and we have no record of his doing any thing on earth after his resurrection, which could be called the atonement.

4. The atonement was made in the Sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place.

5. He could not, according to Hebrews 8:4, make the atonement while on earth. “If he were on earth, he should not be a Priest.” The Levitical was the earthly priesthood, the Divine, the heavenly.

6. Therefore, he did not begin the work of making the atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after his ascension, when by his own blood he entered his heavenly Sanctuary for us.

****************

[Paraphrase] It is said that the atonement was made and finished at Calvary. This has no support in the Mosaic law.

• Who makes the atonement? The high priest. Who was in charge at Calvary? Romans and wicked Jews.

• The death was not the atonement. It was after the death that the high priest took the blood and made the atonement.

• Christ is the High Priest and He could not have made the atonement until after His resurrection.

• The atonement is made in the sanctuary in Jerusalem, but Calvary was not that place (being outside the gate).

• Christ could not make the atonement while on earth for He was not a priest while on earth.

• Therefore He could not make the atonement until after His ascension.

******************

Let us now examine a few texts that appear to speak of the atonement as passed. Romans 5:11; “By whom we have now received the atonement,” (margin, reconciliation). This passage clearly shows a present possession of the atonement at that time the apostle wrote; but it by no means proves that the entire atonement was then in the past.

When the Saviour was about to be taken up from his apostles,

he “commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father,” which came on the day of Pentecost when they were all “baptized with the Holy Ghost.” Christ had entered his Father's house, the Sanctuary, as High Priest, and began his intercession for his people by “praying the Father” for “another Comforter,” John 14:15, “and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost,” Acts 2:33, he shed it down upon his waiting apostles. Then, in compliance with their commission, Peter, at the third hour of the day began to preach, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins,” Acts 2:38. This word remission, signifies forgiveness, pardon or more literally sending away of sins.

Now put by the side of this text another on this point from his discourse at the ninth hour of the same day, Acts 3:19, “Repent ye therefore; and be converted that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” Here he exhorts to repentance and conversion (turning away from sins); for what purpose? “That your sins may be (future) blotted out.” Every one can see that the blotting out of sins does not take place at repentance and conversion; but follows, and must of necessity be preceded by them. Repentance, conversion, and baptism had then become imperative duties in the present tense; and when performed, those doing them “washed away” (Acts 22:16) remitted or sent away from them their sins. (Acts 2:28); and of course are forgiven and have “received the atonement;” but they had not received it entire at that time, because their sins were not yet blotted out.

How far then had they advanced in the reconciling process?

Just so far as the individual under the law had when he had confessed his sin, brought his victim to the door of the tabernacle, laid his hand upon it and slain it, and the priest had with its blood entered the Holy and sprinkled it before the veil and upon the altar and thus made an atonement for him, and he was forgiven. [see Appendix A, page 89.] Only that was the type, and this the reality.

***************(End Quote)

You are probably aware of the fact that God recommended this article to all of us. This article, “The Sanctuary”, by O. R. L. Crozier, was originally printed in the Day-Star Extra newspaper on 7 February, 1846. Regarding it, Ellen White wrote in a letter to Eli Curtis on 21 April, 1847:

“I believe the Sanctuary, to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is a minister. The Lord shew [showed] me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crozier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, &c; and that it was his will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra, to every saint”. A Word to the Little Flock, Page 12.

October 11, 2012

CFK1, you wrote: “THAT is what God had to inflict upon his Son because eternal death (the law's penalty for sin) IS God-abandonment.”

We find in the Bible and the writings of Ellen White many explanations for the death of Jesus. Someone said that we can find all the theories of the atonement in the writings of Mrs. White. The question is not “Which one is the correct one?”, but rather “Which one agrees best with the character of God?” My preference is for one found in the book Education which states:

“Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ’s agony; but that suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God.” [Education page 63]

When a son rebels against his father, the result is pain ant suffering. The father suffers—not because there is a penalty transferred from the guilty to the innocent—but rather because the father loves his child. Pain and suffering is the natural result of rejected love.

If God’s suffering, according to Ellen White, began when sin and rebellion raised it ugly head in God’s universe, and if God’s love towards his children is infinite, then the Lord has already suffered more than enough since rebellion marred the harmony of heaven. The Bible teaches that “In all their afflictions, he was afflicted.” This suggests that there was no need to add to the infinite suffering God had already experienced. By the time Baby Jesus was born in Bethlehem, God had suffered more than enough. The only thing which was needed was for us to appreciate the pain and suffering God had been subjected to as a result of our sins.

I gather from this that if the lessons portrayed by the sacrificial system had been comprehended by the Jewish nation, and if the Jewish leaders had accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah and rightful King, then the death of Jesus would have been superfluous. This did not take place, and God allowed additional suffering to take place by God as a result of the death of Jesus that we might, as Mrs. White suggested, have a glimpse of what sin and rebellion does to the loving heart of God. When the Jews rejected their Savior, the death of Jesus became necessary for the salvation of many.

October 11, 2012

CFK1, you wrote: “While the atrocities of the cross were not God's doings, the law demanded death for every infraction. Hebrews 9:22 - "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."”

There are at least two problems with the interpretation of this text: It used the term “almost,” and it is based on the legal view of the cross. The legal theory of the atonement states that there is no forgiveness unless someone pays the penalty for sin. It also teaches that God’s wrath can be solved by the death of an innocent victim, and that that the life of the guilty can be substituted by the life of the guiltless.

This teaching has a pagan origin. In the Old Testament we find instances where this practice was prevalent not only in pagan cultures but also by some members of the God’s chosen nation. A classic example was the sacrifice of the daughter of Jephtah who made a vow that if he came victorious over his enemies in battle, he would sacrifice the first one who would meet him on his return from war.

Jewish historian Josephus relates how a king sacrificed the life of his first born in order to pacify the wrath of the enemy forces who were holding a prolong siege against his city.

The above quoted which you quoted has its roots in the “talionix lex” which demanded an “eye for an eye.” This law was done away with by Jesus who said “love your enemies.” The eye for an eye law was a temporary arrangement in an effort to place a limit on human vengeance. In pagan cultures, an offended individual could take two eyes for the loss of one eye, or the life of the guilty.

October 11, 2012

Hi Nic,

You wrote:

“If this is true, then it logically follows that it was God who masterminded the death of his Son, and the blame for the death of Jesus is partially shifted from humans and the Devil to God.”

From the words of Jesus that I quoted in the last post, we can see that is actually true; we just need to understand how and why, for

GC88 416.4

“ . . . ‘the counsel of peace shall be between them both.’ [Zechariah 6:13] The love of the Father, no less than of the Son, is the fountain of salvation for the lost race.”

Then I believe we need to consider that the Son of God is also the Son of man. Everything hinges on that fact, for it is written in another place:

{DA 112.5}

“The Holy Spirit through Isaiah, taking up the illustration, prophesied of the Saviour, "He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter," "and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:7, 6); BUT THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL HAD NOT UNDERSTOOD THE LESSON. MANY OF THEM REGARDED THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS MUCH AS THE HEATHEN LOOKED UPON THEIR SACRIFICES,--as gifts by which they themselves might propitiate the Deity. God desired to teach them that from His own love comes the gift which reconciles them to Himself.”

October 11, 2012

One of the most enigmatic questions connected with the Christian faith is: Why did Jesus die? The most common answer is: He offered his life that we might have forgiveness for our sins. He paid the penalty for our sin and rebellion.

October 11, 2012

CFK1, you wrote: “Therefore, no matter if the Jews had accepted Jesus as their Messiah, he could not have set up an earthly kingdom at that time. Jesus came to give the world life, and he could only do that by dying.”

You have just described the legal view of the cross. Such a view is not supported by the story of the prodigal son. When the prodigal son came back home asking for mercy, the father did not say:

“Yes, I want to forgive you for your sin but we need to take care of some legal matters first. We need to kill your innocent little brother first for your sin! Someone needs to die and pay the penalty for your rebellion against your father!”

October 11, 2012

CFK1, you wrote: “The death penalty (not just the "sleep" death, but eternal death) was demanded for every infraction of the ten commandments, from Adam's sin to the last sin committed before probation closes.”

Did Jesus die the “eternal” death? He was dead only from Friday afternoon till Sunday morning. This is not eternal death!

October 11, 2012

CFK1, you wrote: “Death was required because God couldn't go against his own laws. Someone had to die.”

Are you suggesting that God’s laws are above God’s sovereignty? God said to Abraham that the circumcision ordinance would last forever, yet he inspired Paul to do away with the law he had set before. God promised that the house of Priest Eli would remain forever, but the Lord changed his mind as recorded in Scripture:

"Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: 'I promised that your house and your father's house would minister before me forever.' But now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained.” [1 Samuel 2:30]

October 11, 2012

CFK1, you wrote: “Didn't the countless sacrificial animals God required daily, monthly and yearly point to a "substitutionary" death as well? If God could/would "forgive" their sins without inflicting the penalty, why all the animal carnage?”

The sacrificial system was designed to show the pain and suffering God was subjected to as a result of sin and rebellion. When a son rebels against his father, the father suffers as a natural result of his love for his son. If the Jews had understood the pain sin imposes on God, they would have accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah and rightful King, and the death of Jesus would have been superfluous.

Do not forget that all the miracles Jesus performed were designed to impress on the Jewish mind that Jesus was the true Messiah. And let us remember that God even sent an angel to Pilate’s wife with a warning not to authorize the killing of an innocent man. God did all he could to prevent the crucifixion of Jesus. What God wanted all along was for the Jews to accept the Savior he had sent to them.

The role of the promised Savior was illustrated by what Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and other savior had done. They led the people to repentance which was followed by their liberation. Freedom from sin came first and then freedom from oppression by their enemies. Had they repented from their sin, the promise made to Mary, the mother of Jesus, would have taken place and Jesus would have sat on David’s throne forever.

God’s promises and threatening are subject to human response. The Lord inspired his prophets to record contradictory predictions about the Messiah and about the future of Israel. Some prediction described a glorious future for God’s chosen nation, while others predicted the death of the Messiah. The future was in their own hands.

Following the crossing of the Jordan River, Joshua had the people recite both blessings and curses for the people. Whenever they obeyed God, blessing did follow, but when they rebelled against God, curses did prevail. This is the way God acts with people, and the future of the Messiah was no exception. Their future and the future of their Messiah was in the hands of the people he wanted to save from their sins and from the Romans.

October 11, 2012

CFK1, you wrote: “"For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

True law required the death of the guilty one—not the death of the innocent. Killing an innocent man is a miscarriage of justice. The wages of sin is death, and we all die. The gift of God is eternal life, and a gift means that payment is not required.

If you receive a gift and the giver says: “I want payment for my gift,” then the true meaning of gift is destroyed and negated.

October 11, 2012

John, you wrote: “The blood of Jesus is a symbol of His life that He voluntarily gave up for us, not merely of His words.”

Would you say that Jesus was in error when he stated the following?

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh accomplishes nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” [John 6:63]

The saving power does not reside in the drops of blood he shed on Calvary, but rather in Jesus words of life. God spoke, and Adam became a living soul. He spoke, and the world came into existence; Jesus spoke, and Lazarus came out of the tomb; he spoke, and the storm obeyed his voice. No one has the physical blood of Jesus; what we have is his Words of Life.

October 11, 2012

John317, you wrote:

“Let's let the Bible and Ellen G. White give us the answer: Luke 24:44-45

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.”

Yes, all things predicted about the Messiah had to be fulfilled. So, let’s look at what was also predicted about Jesus:

“And he will reign over Israel forever; his Kingdom will never end!" [Luke 1:33]

Likewise, we find in the Old Testament a long list of predictions about a glorious future for Jerusalem and the nation of Israel. All those prediction were contingent on human behavior. They did not take place.

The Lord promised that the posterity of the house of Priest Eli would last forever. This did not take place:

"Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: 'I promised that your house and your father's house would minister before me forever.' But now the LORD declares: 'Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained.” [1 Samuel 2:30]

The Lord sent Jonah with a prediction that the city of Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days. This did not take place.

Ellen White told us that God’s promises and threatening are conditional.

Do not forget that our future is in our hands. Blessing and curses accompany us as long as we live. The promises made to King David and his son Solomon were subject to their future behavior.

The promises made regarding the future of the Jewish Messiah were no exception.

October 11, 2012

John317, you cited the following:

“Acts 2:23

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”

Yes, God also foreknew that Jesus would sit on David’s throne forever. This foreknowledge was contingent on human behavior. Had the Jews accepted him as their Savior and King, Jesus would have sat on David’s throne, and Ellen White stated that Jerusalem would have become the Capital of the entire world.

October 11, 2012

John317, you cited Ellen White:

“The Son of God, heaven's glorious Commander, was touched with pity for the fallen race. His heart was moved with infinite compassion as the woes of the lost world rose up before Him. But divine love had conceived a plan whereby man might be redeemed. The broken law of God demanded the life of the sinner. In all the universe there was but one who could, in behalf of man, satisfy its claims. Since the divine law is as sacred as God Himself, only one equal with God could make atonement for its transgression.”

This quotation represents the legal view of the atonement. Someone said that we can find all the theories of the atonement in the writings of Ellen White. Now look how she described the cross using a totally different theory for the death of Jesus:

“Few give thought to the suffering that sin has caused our Creator. All heaven suffered in Christ’s agony; but that suffering did not begin or end with His manifestation in humanity. The cross is a revelation to our dull senses of the pain that, from its very inception, sin has brought to the heart of God.” [Education page 63]

The above quotation represent the moral view of the atonement. There is another statement by Ellen where she said that the death of Jesus was not a clever maneuver designed to balance the books of heaven.

These last two statements I referred to would tend to deny the legal view of the cross which you cited. So the question is: Which of these three statement by Mrs. White better describes what took place at the cross? I believe that the quotation from the book Education fits better with the character of God as described in the Bible.

Now let’s take a look at the following biblical passage:

“For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!” [Romans 5:10]

My question is: Are we saved by Jesus’ death of by his life? According to this text what the death of Jesus accomplished was our reconciliation with God.

We were alienated from God, but his death reconciled—not God—but us to God. What happens after we are reconciled to God? We are saved by his Life.

Quite often we take what the Lord said in a literal manner. Jesus said to those who were following after him after he fed the five thousand:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.” [John 6:53]

Jesus followers were scandalized. How could they eat his flesh and drink his blood? Jesus clarified his metaphorical statement as follows:

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” [John 6:63]

Likewise, on the evening of his death, Jesus said to his disciples:

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. [Mark 14:24]

Jesus was talking about the wine, which symbolized his blood, which in turn pointed to his life, which was a fit emblem of his Words of Life.

Catholic interpret this literally, but Adventist believe that his statement was a metaphor. As you can see, we have a series of symbols which represented something more profound than the mere literal meaning of his words.

October 12, 2012

John317, you wrote:

“Would God have allowed His beloved Son to be killed in that horrorific way if there had been some other means of saving mankind?”

The answer is obvious! Nevertheless, you are forgetting that both Jesus and God did all in their power to convince the Jewish leaders that Jesus was the true Messiah which had been promised to them. Jesus performed all kinds of miracles as evidence that he was acting under divine power, and God sent an angel to the wife of Pilate with a warning not to condemn an innocent man to death.

All this is powerful evidence that God did not want Jesus to die. But, when the Jews decided to reject Jesus and condemned him to death, then at that point there remained no other option for God but to allow them to carry out their evil designs, knowing that it would provide the strongest evidence that Jesus was the one he claimed to be.

What made the death of Jesus necessary for the salvation of many was the Jews’ rejection of the one who was sent to them to save them from their sins and from the Romans.

You also cited: Acts 2:23

“this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”

God knew that this could happen in the event the Jewish leaders elected to reject Jesus as their Savior, but this was not God’s preferred outcome. God did all he could to convince the Jews that Jesus was sent to them to save them from their sin and from the Roman domination.

Even Ellen White stated that, had the Jewish leaders chosen to accept Jesus as their Savior, Jerusalem would have become the capital of the entire world. That is what God wanted for his chosen nation.

This is the reason Jesus wept over Jerusalem on his triumphal entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey. This was his way of claiming his right to the throne of David, and he proceeded to act as their king when he cleansed the Temple.

The crowd sang hosannas, but the Jewish leaders prevailed and the destiny of the Holy City was sealed. This is the reason Jesus lamented: “If you had only known what pertains to your peace!”

Sign In

Redemption in Spite of the Cross: My View About the Cross and God’s Fo

Recommended Posts

Nic Samojluk

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

phkrause

Gibs

Nic Samojluk

CFK1

phkrause

John317

John317

John317

RonP

RonP

Nic Samojluk

Nic Samojluk

RonP

BobRyan

Nic Samojluk

Nic Samojluk

Nic Samojluk

Nic Samojluk

Nic Samojluk

Nic Samojluk

Nic Samojluk

Nic Samojluk

Nic Samojluk

Nic Samojluk

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity