The Cross Is Not Necessary
[Questions That Haunt]
February 27, 2013 By Tony Jones
Last week’s question
came from Elise, and it’s puts an even finer point on our Lenten #progGOD
Challenge (there are already some
great responses). Here it is, in a nutshell (read the original post to
get the whole context):
I have had an ongoing relationship with
Christianity in which I alternately really get it or really don’t. I really dug
into this the last time I fell away, and the biggest issue I have is with
the Cross…
That’s not to say I have a problem with Jesus
sacrificing Himself on the Cross; I understand the mercy, the sacrifice, the
love that is inherent in that gesture, and that part I think is awesome. The
issue that I have is that it was required in the first place. How could a
loving God heap death and/or eternal damnation on his children for
their sins and call it justice? Why did Jesus have to step up in the first
place?…
How is the Cross’s necessity combined with the fact
that only about 1/3 of the world’s population identifies as Christian/Believer
a demonstration of the justice of a Loving God?
Well, Elise, it’s a great question, and it’s one
that’s on my mind a lot lately. I am thinking about writing a book on the death
of Jesus on the Cross — its meaning and significance — even as I’m also writing
a book on prayer. It’ll be kind of a book sandwich.
You’re not exactly asking Why Jesus died on
the Cross. In fact, your question is less about Jesus, and more about the very
nature of God. You’re asking if God required Jesus’ death.
The short answer is No.
No, Jesus’ death was not required in order for
human beings to be reconciled to God.
The classic conception of God is that God is
capable of all things. Indeed, the most classic way conception is this: when
people talk about a being that is capable of all things, we call that God. This
is how Aristotle and Aquinas write of God, and it’s what I think of when I
think of God. If there is a God, this God is capable of all things.
Therefore, it stands to reason that God did not
have to allow the death of Jesus to be the mechanism by which humanity and all
of creation was reconciled to God.
In other words, if you agree with me that God, by
definition, is capable of anything, then you must also agree that God could
have chosen another way to achieve reconciliation. Indeed, God could have
chosen from an infinite number of ways. Indeed, God could have chosen to never
allow the breach in the relationship in the first place — God could have
stopped “The Fall” and thereby preempted any need for reconciliation.
Your question betrays that you, like many of us,
were raised in the shadow of Reformed theology. In those circles, it’s common
to argue that God’s justice “demands” a sacrifice — since we’ve sinned, God
“cannot” let us experience eternal life in his bosom. We “must” pay for our
sins, and since we cannot, Jesus pays that price for us.
I put certain words in rhetorical quotes in the
previous paragraph because I reject them, just as I reject all language that
implies that God is ever bound to do anything. I believe the God is one
being in the cosmos who has complete and total freedom. God is the only
non-contingent entity, anywhere, ever.
These are statements that I reject as non-sensical:
- God was bound to ________.
- God must do ________.
- God’s character requires that he ________.
- God cannot ________.
- God must do ________.
- God’s character requires that he ________.
- God cannot ________.
You get the point. So here’s an internal
conflict in Reformed theology. One the one hand, Reformed theology teaches
that God is absolutely sovereign and can do whatever God wants (which I agree
with). On the other hand, Reformed theology teaches that God’s sense of justice
requires propitiation
for human sin. As you can see, those two points are incompatible.
As I’ve laid out in other posts — and hopefully in
the forthcoming book — I think there are other reasons for the crucifixion that
are far more beautiful, life-giving, and intellectually satisfying than the
Reformed answer that Jesus death was in any way required.
So I ultimately agree with you: it’s very
troubling to think that Jesus’ death was required. In fact, it’s
theologically incompatible with a traditional view of God. Therefore
I urge you to reject that notion.
@@@@
Notice Jones makes up his own "philosophy" he does not open a Bible or consult historic Christian doctrines or theology
So here is what God's Word says:
Jesus says about himself----"Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24 ESV)
Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year 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 ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
(Hebrews 9 ESV)
(Hebrews 9 ESV)
No comments:
Post a Comment