The need for Christ's sacrifice

[panhead1]

Bear with me on this please, and I also ask for kindness in your replies. I am a Christian and I do believe in what the Creeds teach and in the Bible. That said, I have a question that I have been struggling with for some time. As God is all powerful and all knowing, why was there a need for God the Son to be a sacrifice, to die "for us"? I understand the idea that we are wretched and worthy of punishment for our sins, and Christ's sacrifice frees us from that punishment so long as we believe upon him. I understand that in the Jewish Temple period of Judaism there was a need for animal sacrifices and again Christ replaces and fulfills that.

Being completely honest, I converted to Judaism in the past during a particularly tumultuous time in my life where I questioned everything about religion. Over time my views returned to Christ. Further, I understand how Jesus fulfills the story arc of the Old Testament and completes many prophesies, but if I am completely honest, Judaism has an answer for many of the statements about Jesus fulfilling the prophesies.

Judaism also teaches that God does not really desire those sacrifices, that our prayers are enough. Even the prayers of non-Jews are said to be heard and answered.
1 Kings 8:
41 Listen also to the immigrant who isn’t from your people Israel but who comes from a distant country because of your reputation— 42 because they will hear of your great reputation, your great power, and your outstretched arm. When the immigrant comes and prays toward this temple, 43 then listen from heaven, where you live, and do everything the immigrant asks. Do this so that all the people of the earth may know your reputation and revere you, as your people Israel do, and recognize that this temple I have built bears your name.
.......
46 When they sin against you (for there is no one who doesn’t sin) and you become angry with them and hand them over to an enemy who takes them away as prisoners to enemy territory, whether distant or nearby, 47 if they change their heart in whatever land they are held captive, changing their lives and begging for your mercy,[f] saying, “We have sinned, we have done wrong, we have acted wickedly!” 48 and if they return to you with all their heart and all their being in the enemy territory where they’ve been taken captive, and pray to you, toward their land, which you gave their ancestors, toward the city you have chosen, and toward the temple I have built for your name, 49 then listen to their prayer and request from your heavenly dwelling place. Do what is right for them, 50 and forgive your people who have sinned against you. Forgive all their wrong that they have done against you. See to it that those who captured them show them mercy. 51 These are your people and your inheritance. You brought them out of Egypt, from the iron furnace.

So, if our prayers are in fact enough and what God really desires, what is the actual need for the crucifixion?

 

[Lamb]

Bear with me on this please, and I also ask for kindness in your replies. I am a Christian and I do believe in what the Creeds teach and in the Bible. That said, I have a question that I have been struggling with for some time. As God is all powerful and all knowing, why was there a need for God the Son to be a sacrifice, to die "for us"? I understand the idea that we are wretched and worthy of punishment for our sins, and Christ's sacrifice frees us from that punishment so long as we believe upon him. I understand that in the Jewish Temple period of Judaism there was a need for animal sacrifices and again Christ replaces and fulfills that.

Being completely honest, I converted to Judaism in the past during a particularly tumultuous time in my life where I questioned everything about religion. Over time my views returned to Christ. Further, I understand how Jesus fulfills the story arc of the Old Testament and completes many prophesies, but if I am completely honest, Judaism has an answer for many of the statements about Jesus fulfilling the prophesies.

Judaism also teaches that God does not really desire those sacrifices, that our prayers are enough. Even the prayers of non-Jews are said to be heard and answered.
1 Kings 8:
41 Listen also to the immigrant who isn’t from your people Israel but who comes from a distant country because of your reputation— 42 because they will hear of your great reputation, your great power, and your outstretched arm. When the immigrant comes and prays toward this temple, 43 then listen from heaven, where you live, and do everything the immigrant asks. Do this so that all the people of the earth may know your reputation and revere you, as your people Israel do, and recognize that this temple I have built bears your name.
.......
46 When they sin against you (for there is no one who doesn’t sin) and you become angry with them and hand them over to an enemy who takes them away as prisoners to enemy territory, whether distant or nearby, 47 if they change their heart in whatever land they are held captive, changing their lives and begging for your mercy,[f] saying, “We have sinned, we have done wrong, we have acted wickedly!” 48 and if they return to you with all their heart and all their being in the enemy territory where they’ve been taken captive, and pray to you, toward their land, which you gave their ancestors, toward the city you have chosen, and toward the temple I have built for your name, 49 then listen to their prayer and request from your heavenly dwelling place. Do what is right for them, 50 and forgive your people who have sinned against you. Forgive all their wrong that they have done against you. See to it that those who captured them show them mercy. 51 These are your people and your inheritance. You brought them out of Egypt, from the iron furnace.

So, if our prayers are in fact enough and what God really desires, what is the actual need for the crucifixion?

The prayers to God doesn't prove that there is reconciliation or redemption which is what Jesus' death on the cross did for us.

Yes, God didn't want sacrifices, but blood needed to be shed. That was part of His plan.

Even though the Hebrews/Israelites were God's people, we have seen from time to time in the Old Testament that outsiders COULD be believers of the one True God. That's something that the verses you quoted are showing.

Here is why the Jews are wrong in saying Prayer is enough (enough for salvation?? no). Scripture tells us that God doesn't listen to the prayers of the unbeliever:

Isaiah 59:2
But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

John 9:31
We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.

I, too, have always wondered why God chose to have sacrifice be the way to reconcile us to Him. He could have just forgiven Adam and Eve right away, but He said that sacrifice was needed and blood had to be shed. The penalty for sin was death (Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.) Instead of having Adam and Eve and all their children be eternally separated from God, He came up with the plan to give them life through sacrifice.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

God told us in Leviticus 17 there is life in the blood! The Old Testament sacrifices were paving the way for Jesus' ultimate sacrifice for us, which doesn't need to be repeated.

 

[Albion]

Bear with me on this please, and I also ask for kindness in your replies. I am a Christian and I do believe in what the Creeds teach and in the Bible. That said, I have a question that I have been struggling with for some time. As God is all powerful and all knowing, why was there a need for God the Son to be a sacrifice, to die "for us"?

Your question is more than reasonable, and other believers have wondered the same thing.

In brief, what I think we need to keep in mind is that much of the saga of the fall of mankind and the redemption of it by the direct act of God in Christ is a sacred drama that "is what it is" largely in order to have it impact US, make sense to US who are the fallen creatures of God and who neither do right nor understand the ways of God most of the time.

Yes, God could simply have symbolically waved his hand and forgiven everything. The Incarnation wasn't absolutely necessary for that, nor the Crucifixion, nor the Resurrection. BUT the method God used gets through to us in a way that Him simply willing something to be done would not.

Let's take one part of the "story" as an example. If we leave everything the same but don't have a crucifixion, how does that change make any difference? Well, let's say that everything from Bethlehem and the stable forward remains the same but Christ is ultimately beaten to death by a Roman soldier on Good Friday. That could be honestly said to be the world rejecting Christ and him dying for our sins, etc. etc., except that it doesn't bring home the concept of the most gruesome kind of government-ordered execution imaginable, a sacrifice of an innocent person who voluntarily jeopardizes his life for others. But the Crucifixion (!) terrifies us and remains in our visual memories, even from a distance of 2000 years later.

 

[panhead1]

The prayers to God doesn't prove that there is reconciliation or redemption which is what Jesus' death on the cross did for us.

Yes, God didn't want sacrifices, but blood needed to be shed. That was part of His plan.

True, but it is taught that when sacrifice cannot be done, such as now as there is no Temple, the prayers are enough. When it is possible, it is necessary. As the Psalms say:
For thou delightest not in a sacrifice that I would bring; thou hast no pleasure in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise. Do good in thy favor unto Zion; built thou the walls of Jerusalem. Then wilt thou delight in the sacrifices of righteousness, in burnt offering and whole offering; then will they offer bullocks upon thine altar.

And in Ezekiel 18 it is said:
It may be that a wicked man gives up his sinful ways and keeps all my laws, doing what is just and right. That man shall live; he shall not die. None of the offenses he has committed shall be remembered against him; he shall live because of his righteous deeds. Have I any desire, says the Lord God, for the death of a wicked man? Would I not rather that he should mend his ways and live?

The tricky part there is "keeps all my laws" as the sacrifices ae part of the Law.

Even though the Hebrews/Israelites were God's people, we have seen from time to time in the Old Testament that outsiders COULD be believers of the one True God. That's something that the verses you quoted are showing.

Here is why the Jews are wrong in saying Prayer is enough (enough for salvation?? no). Scripture tells us that God doesn't listen to the prayers of the unbeliever:

I agree, one must be a believer in the One True God and His plan.

Isaiah 59:2
But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

John 9:31
We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.

I, too, have always wondered why God chose to have sacrifice be the way to reconcile us to Him. He could have just forgiven Adam and Eve right away, but He said that sacrifice was needed and blood had to be shed. The penalty for sin was death (Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.) Instead of having Adam and Eve and all their children be eternally separated from God, He came up with the plan to give them life through sacrifice.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

God told us in Leviticus 17 there is life in the blood! The Old Testament sacrifices were paving the way for Jesus' ultimate sacrifice for us, which doesn't need to be repeated.

But there remains the issue that God specifically said he did not want a human sacrifice at all. Maybe we could interpret the crucifixion as a metaphorical sacrifice, but then it would not really be sufficient as a sacrifice to end the sacrifices.

 

[panhead1]

Your question is more than reasonable, and other believers have wondered the same thing.

In brief, what I think we need to keep in mind is that much of the saga of the fall of mankind and the redemption of it by the direct act of God in Christ is a sacred drama that "is what it is" largely in order to have it impact US, make sense to US who are the fallen creatures of God and who neither do right nor understand the ways of God most of the time.

Yes, God could simply have symbolically waved his hand and forgiven everything. The Incarnation wasn't absolutely necessary for that, nor the Crucifixion, nor the Resurrection. BUT the method God used gets through to us in a way that Him simply willing something to be done would not.

Let's take one part of the "story" as an example. If we leave everything the same but don't have a crucifixion, how does that change make any difference? Well, let's say that everything from Bethlehem and the stable forward remains the same but Christ is ultimately beaten to death by a Roman soldier on Good Friday. That could be honestly said to be the world rejecting Christ and him dying for our sins, etc. etc., except that it doesn't bring home the concept of the most gruesome kind of government-ordered execution imaginable, a sacrifice of an innocent person who voluntarily jeopardizes his life for others. But the Crucifixion (!) terrifies us and remains in our visual memories, even from a distance of 2000 years later.

Thank you for your kind words.

But let us back up further, if we leave everything the same and take out the need for a crucifixion we basically end up with Rabbinic Judaism. And Rabbinic Judaism has a way to scripturally explain how sin is dealt with.

 

[panhead1]

I want to thank everyone, this is such a tough subject for me, and I probably am not expressing it as well as I want to. The words and emotions are difficult.

I could simply leave it at "it is what it is" and that is what I have done for the last 5 or so years, but it just keeps itching at my mind.

 

[Albion]

Thank you for your kind words.

But let us back up further, if we leave everything the same and take out the need for a crucifixion we basically end up with Rabbinic Judaism. And Rabbinic Judaism has a way to scripturally explain how sin is dealt with.

Well, I didn't say that there was a need for a Crucifixion. But at the same time, there is a good reason for having Jesus be crucified.

Crucifixion was a common feature of Roman life and was seen as particularly gruesome and shameful even by standards of that time, so for the unfolding of the salvation saga, a Crucifixion is eternally meaningful quite apart from any deference to the Hebrew religious sacrifices or etc.

 

[Lamb]

True, but it is taught that when sacrifice cannot be done, such as now as there is no Temple, the prayers are enough. When it is possible, it is necessary. As the Psalms say:
For thou delightest not in a sacrifice that I would bring; thou hast no pleasure in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise. Do good in thy favor unto Zion; built thou the walls of Jerusalem. Then wilt thou delight in the sacrifices of righteousness, in burnt offering and whole offering; then will they offer bullocks upon thine altar.

And in Ezekiel 18 it is said:
It may be that a wicked man gives up his sinful ways and keeps all my laws, doing what is just and right. That man shall live; he shall not die. None of the offenses he has committed shall be remembered against him; he shall live because of his righteous deeds. Have I any desire, says the Lord God, for the death of a wicked man? Would I not rather that he should mend his ways and live?

The tricky part there is "keeps all my laws" as the sacrifices ae part of the Law.

I agree, one must be a believer in the One True God and His plan.

But there remains the issue that God specifically said he did not want a human sacrifice at all. Maybe we could interpret the crucifixion as a metaphorical sacrifice, but then it would not really be sufficient as a sacrifice to end the sacrifices.

Prayer did not restore them. What prayer, to the one true God, did was to show that they had faith in the promise of a Savior to come. We are all saved in the same way, by grace through faith in the Savior.

 

[panhead1]

OK, I am starting to "get" it, I think. So, the need of a Messiah is fulfilled in Christ. Great. The need (as commanded) for sacrifice is fulfilled by the Suffering Messiah, Jesus. The entire OT points towards Jesus who fulfills all the stories and prophesies about the Suffering Messiah and will fulfill the remainder upon his triumphant return?

 

[Josiah]

Bear with me on this please, and I also ask for kindness in your replies. I am a Christian and I do believe in what the Creeds teach and in the Bible. That said, I have a question that I have been struggling with for some time. As God is all powerful and all knowing, why was there a need for God the Son to be a sacrifice, to die "for us"? I understand the idea that we are wretched and worthy of punishment for our sins, and Christ's sacrifice frees us from that punishment so long as we believe upon him. I understand that in the Jewish Temple period of Judaism there was a need for animal sacrifices and again Christ replaces and fulfills that.

@panhead1

First of all, welcome to the community! And thanks for the very good question....

The Bible (and Church Fathers, Ecumenical Councils) STRESS that Jesus IS THE Savior. Of course, this is the keystone teaching, the very point of Christianity, what makes Christianity distinctive. There is fallenness, there is sin, there is separation from God (a point most religions affirm). And we can't correct this, we can't climb up to God, we can't fix it (another common point of the world's religions). BUT (Christians passionately hold) GOD has fixed it, GOD has come to SAVE us, to redeem us, to restore us.

And that ALL pins on Jesus. HE (and only He - there is no other name under heaven by which any may be saved) IS (really, actually), THE (all sufficient) SAVIOR (not just helper or offerer). AND there is a emphasis that this is accomplished via the LIFE of Jesus (the incarnation), His ) perfection... the DEATH of Jesus... and (especially) the RESURRECTION of Jesus (Easter being THE key event for Christians). All three are stressed, all found in Jesus alone.


BUT here's the "rub" you are getting at. The Bible (and Tradition) never clearly say WHY those 3 things are all necessary. There are a lot of Scriptures that give us PART of the answer for each part, but never really puts it together in a clear way. Yes, it all depends on JESUS (no salvation outside of Him), and BECAUSE of His life, death and resurrection. But WHY.... that's not clearly spelled out.

In the early church, several attempted to "answer" this. These various "answers" are now called "Atonement Theories." These go by various names.

The one you'll hear the most today from Protestants (especially "Evangelicals") is called "The Vicarious Atonement" or "The Substitutionary Atonement." It was best expressed by St. Alselm. This stresses Jesus' role as a substitute and leans a lot on the OT and concept of sacrifice. God requires that we be perfect, we aren't, so Jesus was FOR US. God requires that sin be punished by death, we can't do that an survive, so Jesus did it for us. There are LOTS of Scriptures that support this, but it has one big flaw: It doesn't explain the most important part: the resurrection. Another is sometimes called "Christus Victor" and it stressed Jesus as conqueror, that Jesus is the Second Adam who resists and defeats the devil. Jesus won the victory over sin, death and the power of the Evil One. Luther and Calvin both often expressed this view. There are several others. IN MY OPINION, most of them have a valid point, most of them have solid, clear Scriptures in support, but each by itself falls short. Together, they help - but in truth, the question (you raise) isn't one we can clearly answer. THAT Jesus saves is clear and affirmed.... EXACTLY HOW that's accomplished via the life, death and resurrection of Jesus isn't so clear.


Again, welcome!


- Josiah



.

 

[panhead1]

@panhead1

First of all, welcome to the community! And thanks for the very good question....

The Bible (and Church Fathers, Ecumenical Councils) STRESS that Jesus IS THE Savior. Of course, this is the keystone teaching, the very point of Christianity, what makes Christianity distinctive. There is fallenness, there is sin, there is separation from God (a point most religions affirm). And we can't correct this, we can't climb up to God, we can't fix it (another common point of the world's religions). BUT (Christians passionately hold) GOD has fixed it, GOD has come to SAVE us, to redeem us, to restore us.

And that ALL pins on Jesus. HE (and only He - there is no other name under heaven by which any may be saved) IS (really, actually), THE (all sufficient) SAVIOR (not just helper or offerer). AND there is a emphasis that this is accomplished via the LIFE of Jesus (the incarnation), His ) perfection... the DEATH of Jesus... and (especially) the RESURRECTION of Jesus (Easter being THE key event for Christians). All three are stressed, all found in Jesus alone.

BUT here's the "rub" you are getting at. The Bible (and Tradition) never clearly say WHY those 3 things are all necessary. There are a lot of Scriptures that give us PART of the answer for each part, but never really puts it together in a clear way. Yes, it all depends on JESUS (no salvation outside of Him), and BECAUSE of His life, death and resurrection. But WHY.... that's not clearly spelled out.

In the early church, several attempted to "answer" this. These various "answers" are now called "Atonement Theories."

This is all very helpful, I think that I can live without knowing the why exactly. The case for Jesus being THE Messiah is just too strong to ignore, the entire arc of the OT, over thousands of years pointing to him is very strong.

 

[Faith]

I’ve wondered the same thing as the OP.

 

[panhead1]

It's tough, especially as Judaism does have answers for most anything that Christianity throws at it - if those answers were not compelling enough then every Jew would believe.

In the early church, several attempted to "answer" this. These various "answers" are now called "Atonement Theories." These go by various names.

The one you'll hear the most today from Protestants (especially "Evangelicals") is called "The Vicarious Atonement" or "The Substitutionary Atonement." It was best expressed by St. Alselm. This stresses Jesus' role as a substitute and leans a lot on the OT and concept of sacrifice. God requires that we be perfect, we aren't, so Jesus was FOR US. God requires that sin be punished by death, we can't do that an survive, so Jesus did it for us. There are LOTS of Scriptures that support this, but it has one big flaw: It doesn't explain the most important part: the resurrection. Another is sometimes called "Christus Victor" and it stressed Jesus as conqueror, that Jesus is the Second Adam who resists and defeats the devil. Jesus won the victory over sin, death and the power of the Evil One. Luther and Calvin both often expressed this view. There are several others. IN MY OPINION, most of them have a valid point, most of them have solid, clear Scriptures in support, but each by itself falls short. Together, they help - but in truth, the question (you raise) isn't one we can clearly answer. THAT Jesus saves is clear and affirmed.... EXACTLY HOW that's accomplished via the life, death and resurrection of Jesus isn't so clear.


Again, welcome!


- Josiah

I am pretty familiar with the different Atonement Theories, the issue is that as you say, they each fall short. From the perspective of Judaism....none of that is necessary. Judaism reaches the atonement solution in a different way, and it may also fall short, but if all of our explanations also fall short, then why is ours better? Ours has Jesus, which seems to be the solution for the Messiah, but Judaism has a lot of very good refutations to our solutions.

How do we get past the prohibition on human sacrifice? How is it "ok" to view Jesus as a substitutionary sacrifice when God has said he prohibits that? Scripture points that people must atone for their own sins, one cannot do it for someone else. As God requires perfection, he had a system for that perfection, and while continual sacrifices were necessary, it did not seem like the system had to go, indeed it seems parts of scripture point to the sacrificial system starting again in the future.

Deuteronomy 24:16 says that every man must die for his own sin:
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20-24
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die



I should say, I am not trying to promote Judaism at all, I am just really struggling with these concepts and refutations being presented. I want to believe, I want to just "leave it to God" and follow along, be a "good Christian", but it is so hard.

 

[Lamb]

OK, I am starting to "get" it, I think. So, the need of a Messiah is fulfilled in Christ. Great. The need (as commanded) for sacrifice is fulfilled by the Suffering Messiah, Jesus. The entire OT points towards Jesus who fulfills all the stories and prophesies about the Suffering Messiah and will fulfill the remainder upon his triumphant return?

Who else could bring justification to us? No one but the perfect lamb. None of us could achieve that.

 

[Lamb]

It's tough, especially as Judaism does have answers for most anything that Christianity throws at it - if those answers were not compelling enough then every Jew would believe.

I am pretty familiar with the different Atonement Theories, the issue is that as you say, they each fall short. From the perspective of Judaism....none of that is necessary. Judaism reaches the atonement solution in a different way, and it may also fall short, but if all of our explanations also fall short, then why is ours better? Ours has Jesus, which seems to be the solution for the Messiah, but Judaism has a lot of very good refutations to our solutions.

How do we get past the prohibition on human sacrifice? How is it "ok" to view Jesus as a substitutionary sacrifice when God has said he prohibits that? Scripture points that people must atone for their own sins, one cannot do it for someone else. As God requires perfection, he had a system for that perfection, and while continual sacrifices were necessary, it did not seem like the system had to go, indeed it seems parts of scripture point to the sacrificial system starting again in the future.

Deuteronomy 24:16 says that every man must die for his own sin:
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20-24
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die



I should say, I am not trying to promote Judaism at all, I am just really struggling with these concepts and refutations being presented. I want to believe, I want to just "leave it to God" and follow along, be a "good Christian", but it is so hard.

Everyone should die for their own sins is what you quoted from scripture...and what happens in our Baptisms? We die to sin.

Romans 6:3-4 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

 

[panhead1]

Everyone should die for their own sins is what you quoted from scripture...and what happens in our Baptisms? We die to sin.

Romans 6:3-4 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Love that, very good point.

 

[Lees]

@panhead1

First, you are mistaken concerning your use of (Ps. 51:16). "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering." As you read further you see that is only because ones offering was meaningless when he was still involved in his sin. But when one repents of his sins, and wants to rightfully follow after God, then his heart is right, and his offerings are desired and accepted by God, as prescribed by God. (Ps. 51:19) "Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness....."

Second, no, God could not just wave his hand and say all is forgiven. God cannot cease to be God. His righteous nature would not, could not, allow sin to be just ignored. His nature demands judgement and payment for sin.

Lees

 

[panhead1]

@panhead1

First, you are mistaken concerning your use of (Ps. 51:16). "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering." As you read further you see that is only because ones offering was meaningless when he was still involved in his sin. But when one repents of his sins, and wants to rightfully follow after God, then his heart is right, and his offerings are desired and accepted by God, as prescribed by God. (Ps. 51:19) "Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness....."

Care to elaborate how it is mistaken?

Second, no, God could not just wave his hand and say all is forgiven. God cannot cease to be God. His righteous nature would not, could not, allow sin to be just ignored. His nature demands judgement and payment for sin.

Lees

Valid point, thank you for making it.

 

[panhead1]

Meditating more on the overall arc of the scriptures from the OT through the NT and how it all so eloquently points to Jesus - I think this is probably the most important part to me.

While some of the questions I have may not be answered, or may be incompletely answered, the reality is that the scriptures were written during, of, through, and about a exceedingly long time period and involving many people. The way that it all ties together to point to Jesus cannot be denied. So, while my questions may not be answered entirely, in the end it may not really matter. The undeniable Messiahship of Jesus, his undeniable divinity, these matter the most and are to be held onto.

 

[Albion]

Valid point, thank you for making it.

(responding to Lees who wrote this:

Second, no, God could not just wave his hand and say all is forgiven. God cannot cease to be God. His righteous nature would not, could not, allow sin to be just ignored. His nature demands judgement and payment for sin.

Of course God could do that! If He were incapable of forgiving sin through the force of His own will, that would verge upon Him ceasing to be God.

In addition, your statement confuses forgiving sin with Him supposedly just ignoring it.
'

It is rudimentary for Christians to believe that God is omnipotent. In addition, the Bible itself shows us that God did not always adhere to the letter of the law that He Himself gave to the Hebrew people.