Why did Jesus die?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

We are 10 days shy of Good Friday, and I and some others were "discussing" the question today at lunch, and I found that I've changed much of my answer (an answer here is really a theory of atonement, I suppose, for you theologians out there).

I have many answers, and I know it's been discussed here before, but if you had to write one paragraph or explain it to somebody without overly confusing them or putting them to sleep, how/what would you say?

Why did Jesus die?

[Scott Daniels]

Simple answer: Because we (humankind - His creation) rejected him and killed him (and his embodied message of the Kingdom).

But rather than responding with the violence that we used to destroy him, Christ embodied the very nature and character of God by forgiving us and allowing us to put him to death. In this ironic way (that is foolishness to every worldly power) Christ revealed the nature of the Kingdom and won the victory over our cycles of sin and death by overcoming evil with good.

And now he calls his followers to the same life - to take up their cross daily and follow him.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Simple answer: Because we (humankind - His creation) rejected him and killed him (and his embodied message of the Kingdom).

But rather than responding with the violence that we used to destroy him, Christ embodied the very nature and character of God by forgiving us and allowing us to put him to death. In this ironic way (that is foolishness to every worldly power) Christ revealed the nature of the Kingdom and won the victory over our cycles of sin and death by overcoming evil with good.

And now he calls his followers to the same life - to take up their cross daily and follow him.

Wow...thanks a lot. That's what I've tried to say the last couple of months, but not that clearly and concisely. If it needs a name, I've explained it as the "exemplary theory of atonement."

But help me further, please. Of note is that no where within is there an inference that it must happen this way (or even that Jesus must die). Didn't he demonstrate victory over those cycles with the life that he lived? The nature of the Kingdom (with Christ being the anointed King) was demonstrated in many other ways (e.g. Mary's anointing of his feet, riding an ass into Jerusalem, the King washing his subjects' feet, etc.). In this explanation of his death, how does it imply the necessity of Christ's death? Or does it? If not, does it need to?

I guess I should be forthright now. This resurfaced in my mind again today at the weekly RCL discussion group I get to participate in. I tried to keep driving down the point that the events of this period (and our reflections, movements, and commitments during Lent) are more than just events to "remember". Lent is a time for us to identify with, or draw near to the cross of Christ that we might identify our own. It particularly came up when I noted that we most often in the evangelical church get Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday with, at best, a short gathering on Good Friday. My point was that we have to "go through" Good Friday in life. And that in this life, God wants us to "die" so that he can resurrect Christ within us. And when I talked about this in relation to the events of Holy Week, the response was that I was "allegorizing" too much, and when I talk about Christ on the cross as example to us, I'm downplaying the act on the cross as one "for our sins".

So the short of my rambling here is, I guess:
How do you explain to those who hold so dearly to the penal substitution, propitiation, etc. theories the importance (and I'd even venture to say precedence) of Christ on the cross as example to us?

(Something rings true to me here about Dallas Willard's warning against "vampire Christianity" - that which seeks Christ for his blood only.)

[Doug Kitchen]

We are 10 days shy of Good Friday, and I and some others were "discussing" the question today at lunch, and I found that I've changed much of my answer (an answer here is really a theory of atonement, I suppose, for you theologians out there).

I have many answers, and I know it's been discussed here before, but if you had to write one paragraph or explain it to somebody without overly confusing them or putting them to sleep, how/what would you say?

Why did Jesus die?

Funny you should ask. Our teens are writing devotionals for each day of Holy Week based on Mark 14-15. I am writing one of them since I am NYI director and chose 15:33-40, the death of Jesus. I liked Scott Daniel's answer very much and it is giving me some more to think about.

A summary title that I found for the Mark 15 is "In death, Jesus is confessed as God's Son". The key verse being the Centurion's statement "Truly this man was God's Son" (I can't get John Wayne's voice out of my head whenever I read that verse ;) if you've seen the movie you know what I mean).

here are 3 thoughts that have been wandering around my head recently:

One answer to your question is that God is testifying to His nature and character. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" - states one element of His character that is absent in us.

By giving up His body, He created a new community of God's children who live in His resurrection. (A restatement of a Lenten prayer that I received from Bread for the World)

John 12:24-25 "but if [a grain of wheat] dies, it bears much fruit." Christ's death was intended to be transformative and atoning.

Doug

[Scott Daniels]

Jeremy,

1. What's RCL?

2. I really like Denny Weaver's description of atonement as "Narrative Christus Victor." He has a nice essay in a very recent book edited by John Sanders entitled "Violence and Atonement" (Abingdon). I have an essay in there also on non-violence and atonement, but his is better.

3. I believe his death must happen this way in that - as you point out - it is completely consistent with the way he taught the kingdom. Could one who preached that peacemakers are the blessed "children of God" and that we ought to overcome evil with good die with a sword in his hand? I suppose that humankind could have - in theory - accepted the Kingdom rather than kill the Son of God, but everything the prophets said about the condition of the human heart told us that this is how things would happen. BTW - we killed the prophets, why would Jesus be any different?

4. I agree wholeheartedly with you about the need to walk through Holy Week before we get to Easter. It is also why baptism is a great sacrament - because in it we have to participate in a kind of dying in order to experience resurrection.

5. I don't know that you can really change the minds of folk that have to have some form of penal substitution or satisfaction. The idea is too deeply ingrained in most Western ideas of punishment - as retribution rather than restoration - and it is too deeply woven into the sort of trivial things we say and sing about the cross to be changed. I think Wesleyans who hold up love as the primary aspect of God's character certainly have an easier time moving away from overdone substitution than Reformed traditions. But its still pretty tough for most Wesleyans.

The one thing that you can do is try to give better instruction about the sacrificial system in the OT. Certainly Paul and the writer of Hebrews draws on the language of sacrifice as a way to describe the atonment. But I would argue that in the OT the sacrificial system was not an attempt to buy God's favor or appease God's justice. It is God who provided the mercy seat. God (who is full of steadfast love and mercy) makes the first move of restoration toward humankind. The sacrifice by the priest becomes a visible and physical way for humankind to recognize the depth of their sinfulness and the death (and potential for death) that their sin has brought and will continue to bring into their lives apart from God's grace, restoration, and transformation.

Its sort of a cheesy example... but with my students I used to use the example of infidelity in marriage. If a husband cheats on his wife and she kicks him out, the relationship is broken and a life of exile (death of love) is all that he deserves. But if she - like God - permits that relationships to be restored... with what should he come home to her? Certainly he should not come home with a date on his arm!! He comes home (perhaps crawls home) with flowers, chocolates, and an open charge card to Macy's. Not because she has to have those things to forgive him (she has already extended mercy) but like the sacrifice of the people, those gifts demonstrate that he understands and recognizes his sin, his guilt, and his need for her grace.

In the same way the cross reveals our guilt, but it also demonstrates that there is no sacrifice that we could make that could ever buy God's favor. Whatever needed to be done to re-establish relationship between us and God - to make atonement (at-one-ment) - has been completely accomplished and demonstrated in Christ's sacrificial death.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

1. What's RCL?


Revised Common Lectionary

[Scott Daniels]

How cool Jeremy. Where did you find a Revised Common Lectionary discussion group? Did you find it or form it?

[Jon Twitchell]

A side note...

I once (3 or 4 years ago) started an online RCL discussion forum, but it fell by the wayside because I wasn't able to recruit enough participants. I'd be willing to do so again, if there was enough interest.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

It meets weekly at the Wollaston CotN. We've been meeting for several weeks now. Fred Fullerton (pastor at Wally) and other elders and members from the church are regular participants. I believe it was the idea of Dr. Cliff Hersey. It's really open to all, but so far I am the only person who doesn't attend Wollaston that comes. I've really appreciated the opportunity. It adds to the elements I long for in using the lectionary.

There is also an RCL group that meets here in my town (Hingham) made up of various local clergy (Baptist, UCC, and even a Rabbi), but I have yet to be invited to that group. I'd love to participate there - discussion would be quite interesting.

[Hans Deventer]

So the short of my rambling here is, I guess:
How do you explain to those who hold so dearly to the penal substitution, propitiation, etc. theories the importance (and I'd even venture to say precedence) of Christ on the cross as example to us?

That's the very point of my current tagline.

[Billy Cox]

We are 10 days shy of Good Friday, and I and some others were "discussing" the question today at lunch, and I found that I've changed much of my answer (an answer here is really a theory of atonement, I suppose, for you theologians out there).

I have many answers, and I know it's been discussed here before, but if you had to write one paragraph or explain it to somebody without overly confusing them or putting them to sleep, how/what would you say?

Why did Jesus die?

Jesus was fully human and humans die, but God can bring life out of death; justice out of injustice, righteousness out of rebellion.

As for a theory of atonement, I find the word 'theory' to be instructive. It tells me that atonement consists of far more mystery than intellectual certainty.

[Kevin Rector]

Good thread. Just about everything I was going to say was said by Scott but probably a lot better than I could.

We are not saved because Jesus died on a cross, we are saved because Jesus is holy. His holiness led to the cross because a life of holiness always does.

[Hans Deventer]

Good thread. Just about everything I was going to say was said by Scott but probably a lot better than I could.

We are not saved because Jesus died on a cross, we are saved because Jesus is holy. His holiness led to the cross because a life of holiness always does.

Yes. And because God vindicated Jesus by raising him from the death. (1 Cor 15:19). There is no salvation without the resurrection. It is THE central message of the gospel.

[Kevin Rector]

Yes. And because God vindicated Jesus by raising him from the death. (1 Cor 15:19). There is no salvation without the resurrection. It is THE central message of the gospel.

While it is absolutely true that the cross leads to the resurrection and the resurrection is very important for giving us hope, I'm going to have to disagree that the resurrection is "THE central message of the gospel". (I can hear Western Christians the world over gasping).

We are saved because of the totality of the Christ event. From incarnation to ascension and everything in between. We are saved because of who Christ is, and because he wants to know us. We are saved because while we were God's enemies he loved us and reached out to us by becoming one of us. To single out one aspect of Christ's time on earth would be to make for a lopsided soteriology. In fact you could even go further and say that the totality of God's interaction with humanity from creation to eschaton is why we are saved.

THE good news is not that Christ was raised from the dead, even though it is very good news, THE good news is that God loves you and wants to be your father, friend, savior, and brother. THE good news is that the one who created everything and who provides all that is good in the world desires to know you and to be known by you. THAT to me is the central message of the gospel.

[Scott Daniels]

Right, Kevin. I'm with you. The resurrection matters because of the way Jesus died. And the way that Jesus died becomes a normative pattern (of self-giving love) for the Christian life because God raised the one who died in this way from the dead.

If Jesus hadn't risen from the dead, giving one's life in love for your enemy is absurd.

[Hans Deventer]

In fact you could even go further and say that the totality of God's interaction with humanity from creation to eschaton is why we are saved.

You could simply say, we are saved because of who God is. And you might call that grace too!!! I don't disagree here, Kevin, nor with the rest of what you wrote.

Yet the resurrection certainly was THE message of the early church. For even God's love isn't worth a lot (as Paul wrote) unless there is such a thing as the resurrection. And all we have is Jesus as the firstborn from the dead. Because of that, I have hope.

This is very personal for me. You know, one of the stories in the Bible that has always touched me most, that I can hardly read without crying, and that is probably the very reason why I am a Christian, is the story of the resurrection of Lazarus in John 11. God's love, God's forgiveness, even God's incarnation, it would all have been useless if the end is that we all die and that is that. But I live, I breathe by this very hope that one day, I will hear the Lord's voice saying: 'Hans, come out!' And because of this voice, I will!
And of course that has everything to do with love and forgiveness, but it is the resurrection in which all of this comes together.

So to me, the resurrection encompasses everything who God is. It is that one point where grace, forgiveness, power, victory, love, joy, hope and all my dreams come together, through the God-Man Jesus. My Lord and my God.

[Kevin Rector]

Right, Kevin. I'm with you.

So far in my time on NazNet I have yet to read anything that you've written that I don't agree with. That's sort of weird.

[Billy Cox]

We are 10 days shy of Good Friday, and I and some others were "discussing" the question today at lunch, and I found that I've changed much of my answer (an answer here is really a theory of atonement, I suppose, for you theologians out there).

I have many answers, and I know it's been discussed here before, but if you had to write one paragraph or explain it to somebody without overly confusing them or putting them to sleep, how/what would you say?

Why did Jesus die?

Aside from sale of little cross necklaces, does the means of Jesus' execution matter at all?

[Randy Wise]

Why did Jesus die?

Jesus said the command came from the Father to lay down His life and take it up again. So would the question be why did the Father command the Son to go to the cross? I believe the main component would be that is how God chose to forgive sin prompted by His own great love for those in the world. It might be debated by some that God doesn't need that act to forgive sin, but the God of the bible has clearly demonstrated that He punishes those that sin and refuse His correction. So Jesus took our punishment and our sin away so that we would not perish in our sin. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Hebrews 9:22 NIV
Randy

[Brad Mercer]

So far in my time on NazNet I have yet to read anything that you've written that I don't agree with. That's sort of weird.

Better be careful! I've heard that where two people agree on everything, one of them is unnecessary. :basic03

Brad

P.S. I just wanna be a blessing.

[Charles W Christian]

Scott and Kevin state clearly a trend I see that moves away from any sort of "substitutionary" language in regard to the atonement. I think they go both go a bit too far in not seeing the importance of the resurrection (at least from what I read I see a downplaying of the resurrection). Hans is right in seeing the resurrection as a key issue in the early proclamations of Christianity, for two basic reasons:
1) The idea of resurrection itself seems to be a bit of a "paradigm shift" in Jewish thought (compare the sparse references to any idea of escaping from the power(s) of [I]Sheol[I] in the OT with the incredibly prodigious amount of resurrection talk in the NT, for instance;
2) Resurrection is an inseparable part of the redemption "package," according to I Cor.15, for example. Without the resurrection, we are to be pitied, according to Paul!

Having said that, I will get back briefly to the original question, if I could. This trend to dismiss ANY sort of substitutionary language goes too far in my view, and is certainly out of step historically with most of Christian tradition. It is a pendulum swing that, to its credit, tries to correct the over-emphasis upon penal substitutionary and ransom language of the Evangelical past (and present), but it throws the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

It seems that, biblically speaking, one must say something MORE than Jesus's death was merely exemplary, even though we undoubtedly could use more emphasis upon the "taking up the cross" model than we've had. What I hear those who are moving completely away from any kind of substitutionary kind of language is that Jesus did something for us by dying on the cross that we SHOULD have done but would not. My reading of the cross/resurrection event is that Jesus did something that we COULD NOT have done for ourselves. This is a key distinction, I believe, and one that is missing from my brothers (Scott and Kevin) on this posts and in other writings (Scott) that I've seen related to this.

Thoughts??

Respectfully submitted,
Charles

[Randy Wise]

Scott and Kevin state clearly a trend I see that moves away from any sort of "substitutionary" language in regard to the atonement. I think they go both go a bit too far in not seeing the importance of the resurrection (at least from what I read I see a downplaying of the resurrection). Hans is right in seeing the resurrection as a key issue in the early proclamations of Christianity, for two basic reasons:
1) The idea of resurrection itself seems to be a bit of a "paradigm shift" in Jewish thought (compare the sparse references to any idea of escaping from the power(s) of [i]Sheol[i] in the OT with the incredibly prodigious amount of resurrection talk in the NT, for instance;
2) Resurrection is an inseparable part of the redemption "package," according to I Cor.15, for example. Without the resurrection, we are to be pitied, according to Paul!

Having said that, I will get back briefly to the original question, if I could. This trend to dismiss ANY sort of substitutionary language goes too far in my view, and is certainly out of step historically with most of Christian tradition. It is a pendulum swing that, to its credit, tries to correct the over-emphasis upon penal substitutionary and ransom language of the Evangelical past (and present), but it throws the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

It seems that, biblically speaking, one must say something MORE than Jesus's death was merely exemplary, even though we undoubtedly could use more emphasis upon the "taking up the cross" model than we've had. What I hear those who are moving completely away from any kind of substitutionary kind of language is that Jesus did something for us by dying on the cross that we SHOULD have done but would not. My reading of the cross/resurrection event is that Jesus did something that we COULD NOT have done for ourselves. This is a key distinction, I believe, and one that is missing from my brothers (Scott and Kevin) on this posts and in other writings (Scott) that I've seen related to this.

Thoughts??

Respectfully submitted,
Charles

I am with you with if atonement is the main component of your belief and thats why our religion preaches the forgiveness of sin is found only in Christ Jesus as other religions preach repentance as well. Jesus basically stated as He lives because of the living Father in Him we will live because of Him is us. Thats why Jesus told those that rejected Him they didn't have life in themselves. If Jesus died and didn't rise again Jesus wouldn't have been shown as alive and we wouldn't have His life in us that Jesus proclaimed. Because He lives we live. So the resurrection certainly was a very important act, but not in my mind why He needed to go the cross. That act I agree also required the sinless Son of God as the lamb offered.

Randy

[Scott Daniels]

What I hear those who are moving completely away from any kind of substitutionary kind of language is that Jesus did something for us by dying on the cross that we SHOULD have done but would not. My reading of the cross/resurrection event is that Jesus did something that we COULD NOT have done for ourselves.

Charles,

I hear your critique. I tend to think that the current evangelical tradition is so substitutionary at its core that I probably over compensate. And I do agree that the cross and the resurrection have to go together. Without the resurrection the cross is just a moral model but without the cross the resurrection is no more creation re-forming than Lazarus being raised from the dead.

I think the dominance of the Greek view of the body/soul dualism has hurt the understanding that Jesus overcomes death - which is certainly something we could not have done for ourselves.

I think you are right in making this distinction and I would be very interested to hear some of what you think is included in the things that we could not have done for ourselves... I think there are many things that I would include there - EXCEPT appease an angry God.

Peace

[Hans Deventer]

This trend to dismiss ANY sort of substitutionary language goes too far in my view, and is certainly out of step historically with most of Christian tradition. It is a pendulum swing that, to its credit, tries to correct the over-emphasis upon penal substitutionary and ransom language of the Evangelical past (and present), but it throws the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

It seems that, biblically speaking, one must say something MORE than Jesus's death was merely exemplary, even though we undoubtedly could use more emphasis upon the "taking up the cross" model than we've had. What I hear those who are moving completely away from any kind of substitutionary kind of language is that Jesus did something for us by dying on the cross that we SHOULD have done but would not. My reading of the cross/resurrection event is that Jesus did something that we COULD NOT have done for ourselves.

My thoughts are that I agree, Charles. I really feel we need to move away from that penal substitution theory because it is totally impersonal and taken at its logical conclusion, it means that we have either a limited atonement or all the world will be saved, both without any input from our side. It is Calvinistic to the core.

But I most certainly agree with you that Jesus did something we never could have done. We could only have died for our own sins, not for those of other people. Only a sinless man, a perfect lamb, could have died for others.

There is this one article in the Wesleyan Theological Journal that has impacted my thinking on the issue to a great extent: A COVENANT CONCEPT OF ATONEMENT (http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/16-20/19-09.htm) by R. Larry Shelton. It's more than 20 years old but I wish the WTJ had more articles like that.

[Charles W Christian]

Thanks, Scott and Hans (and Randy) --
This could open up some great communication about a subject dear to me (and to many of us). I'm at District Assembly now, so it will be a bit before I can carry on a conversation better.

I like Larry Shelton's work. In fact, he and I presented (separate) papers in the same section at Asbury a few years ago. He has just gotten his book on the "Covenant" view of the atonement accepted for publication, but I cannot remember with whom. He has another article in a recent Asbury Journal of Theology, and his work is quite interesting.

I do agree that the penal sub. theory has overstayed its welcome, especially in Wesleyan circles. Randy Maddox has a great section on the atonement in Responsible Grace (his Magnum Opus :-) ). He speaks of Jesus not simply representing humankind (which has a penal kind of "feel") on the cross, but also representing God (of course)! This sounds subtle, but I think a more "Godward" kind of emphasis is indeed needed in our discussions of atonment; however, I just think that many (most?) moral example kinds of theories tend to swing the pendulum too far in another direction.

There must be a way to do the following in regard to the atonement:
1) Preserve the uniqueness of it (Scott mentions this is his last response);
2) Demonstrate some tie to the Old Testament (without simply falling into the ransom/penal substitution "trap")
3) Balancing the idea of "distance" in regard to the atonement (i.e., Jesus did this, because we could not) with the idea that we are to be active respondents to it (i.e., "take up your cross and follow me,"),
etc.

That sounds like a tall order, and I think it involves some delving into great mysteries (the "deeper magic," as CS Lewis would say), but that's what makes Christian theology fun!

Finally, Scott, kudos on your refutation of the overly "Greek" dualism present in many Christian formulations. I think Paternoster Press is about to "green light" a book (my dissertation basically) on that subject in early summer (which means it would be released in 2008, perhaps). :basic05 Shameless plug alert!!!
Seriously, they are interested, but there's been no final word yet.

It will seek to assess the anthropological terms of the OT and NT in a more "holistic" light and draw some conclusions/make some implications from there on things like death, the intermediate state, and even pastoral care. Anyway, we'll see. . . .

Thanks again,

Charles

[Jeff Scott]

Before I lay out my answer to this moron's question, allow me to give you insight into the way I think. (For those of you that don't know, Jeremy Scott is my brother- so I use the label "moron" with great love and sincerety. Hey, at least I didn't say "Raca!" :p )

1) Since I have come into this conversation at a late date in the discussion, there was a lot to read. I skimmed some of it, so somebody may have touched upon my thoughts already.

2) I do not have the education that some of you obviously have. I haven't studied theology as much as some of you. Aside from a couple of required undergraduate courses at a Nazarene institution, I have no formal training. Most of my thoughts are just that- my thoughts on trying to make sense of life and our relationship to God. This will likely be evident in some of my comments. I'm sure I'm oversimplifying things because...

3) Whenever a question like this one is posed to me, I cannot help but think of how my answer is going to sound to someone who has no Christian background, let alone Christian theological training. How would my answer sound to them? (I doubt there are many of those people in this forum.) My answers will likely lead to more questions, so I try to keep it as simple as possible, yet as "big picture" as possible (i.e. the death is only part of the story...as is the resurrection). I also believe that Joe Shmoe will also want an answer that they find meaningful for their life (which is likely NOT a big picture answer). They are also likely looking for an answer that will be meaningful for their life on this side of the valley of death, not just at judgement day.

So...here goes...

I am reminded that the scriptures explain that "the wages of sin is death." For many years I understood this translate "wages = punishment" so I might as well have read it "the punishment for sin is death" 'cause that's how I understood it. I was born into sin. Even if I wasn't, God gave us the ten commandments and I had broken some of them so I am a sinner. So Jesus died to pay for my sins. (It's not too hard to see where I would get this idea is it?) I think this is what we mean when we use the word atonement. Correct me if I am wrong. I sometimes am (like when I referred to my brother as a moron. He's not a moron; he's a weirdo.:bannana )

This didn't sit well with me though. Why would God just give us a set of rules by which we must abide or else?!?! And why did something (or someone) have to die to make restitution? Couldn't God just forgive a sincere heart?

I went back to the beginning of the story to look at what happened again. At the point in my life where I began the spiritual journey of looking at these questions I had already given up on a literal understanding of much of what the Bible says- the creation story included. It simply doesn't matter to me if certain passages are literal or not. (That's not the 11th commandment.) BUT, the stuff was still in the Bible and the WHOLE Bible was/is still authoritative for me. Having said that, the story of Adam and Eve is more about humanity than it is about the first sin. And the name of the tree which produced the forbidden fruit (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).

Now, Eve/Adam (I/we) did eat of this fruit. Since I may or may not be taking this story literally, I needed to make sense of what the tree represented. It represents a decision to do things on our own, our way, regardless of what God thinks. Since God is our creator, he'd probably know best for us, and living his way will ensure eternal life. However, we decided that we would decide for ourselves what was good or evil- how to live. We decided to separate ourselves from God's way of doing things. Sin, that which separates us from God, entered into the human story. Now we're living our way and our way won't ensure eternal life. In fact, our way leads to death. You might say that the wages of doing things our way is death. If we do things our way, we're going to die. It's now part of the human condition. Unavoidable.

(NOTE: I'm going to skip all my thoughts about sacrifices and stuff and jump right to Jeremy's question- Why did Jesus have to die?)

Couldn't it be that the main reason Jesus had to die was because he was human? I mean, don't we believe that Jesus was fully human? Isn't death part of the human experience? Regardless of the way Jesus died, didn't he have to die to have the entire human experience? (Please don't bring up that little old testament chariot ride. I don't have an answer for that challenge yet!) Besides, if he didn't die, how would he defeat death? He certainly didn't deserve to die the way he died. But humanity rejected God in the beginning, why did we expect any different the second time he tried to show us how to live?

So, Jeremy, my answer to your question is simply this: Jesus had to die because that is what happens when you are fully human. Fortunately, Jesus was not only fully human, he was fully God. And as you may have guessed, the resurection plays an important part in my understanding of our story!

Well, that's it. Feel free to fill some holes for me.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Jesus had to die because that is what happens when you are fully human. Fortunately, Jesus was not only fully human, he was fully God. And as you may have guessed, the resurrection plays an important part in my understanding of our story!

Talking about "humanity" and "being human" is difficult sometimes. Over the years, Christianity has spoken of the fallen nature of humanity to describe what happens to sinful humanity. But when we say that we believe that God created humanity, we're saying that the original state of humanity is what God intended. And God did not intend that humans die.

So, Hebrews helps us understand that Jesus was the perfect human. He was all that we are supposed to be. In him we see the "true adam". And the true humanity in him is not that he died, but that he lived.

[Jamie Wayne]

Talking about "humanity" and "being human" is difficult sometimes. Over the years, Christianity has spoken of the fallen nature of humanity to describe what happens to sinful humanity. But when we say that we believe that God created humanity, we're saying that the original state of humanity is what God intended. And God did not intend that humans die.

So, Hebrews helps us understand that Jesus was the perfect human. He was all that we are supposed to be. In him we see the "true adam". And the true humanity in him is not that he died, but that he lived.

Aboslutely! I was going to raise that point, too, when I read that comment.

Jesus was a human, but He was a human like Adam before "the Fall". As such, Jesus was NOT destined to die like post Fall humanity. I think that Jesus would have lived forever had nobody killed Him, just as I think that Adam would have lived forever had he not eaten of the fruit when he did. Were it not for the Fall, there would be no need for resurrection.

Getting back to the original subject, this might not be standard thinking around these parts, but I find St. Anselm's theory of atonement to be very beautiful.