Was God just in letting Jesus die?

[Christian2]

I know the standard reasons why Jesus died, but my question today hast to do with the justness of God.

Facts:

Jesus predicted He would die.

Jesus said He would lay down His life for the sheep.

Jesus said He had the power to lay down His life and to take it up again.

Jesus asked the Father if there was another way -- "let this cup pass."

The Father said no and let Him die.

Jesus said, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me" while dying on the cross, quoting Psalm 22 as most scholars believe He was doing.

Jesus felt forsaken while on the cross because the sins of the world were on Him.

Jesus was innocent; Jesus never sinned.

Now the question: Was God just in letting an innocent man die for our sins? Could this be the one time when God was not just?

Thanks.

[Byblos]

I know the standard reasons why Jesus died, but my question today hast to do with the justness of God.

Facts:

Jesus predicted He would die.

Jesus said He would lay down His life for the sheep.

Jesus said He had the power to lay down His life and to take it up again.

Jesus asked the Father if there was another way -- "let this cup pass."

The Father said no and let Him die.

Jesus said, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me" while dying on the cross, quoting Psalm 22 as most scholars believe He was doing.

Jesus felt forsaken while on the cross because the sins of the world were on Him.

Jesus was innocent; Jesus never sinned.

Now the question: Was God just in letting an innocent man die for our sins? Could this be the one time when God was not just?

Thanks.

Since God has taken on the burden of the sins of the world onto himself (personified in the son) then yes, he was totally acting in a just manner. This is like asking if a person is acting justly for laying his life down to protect another.

[jlay]

I see what you are asking.

No question, justice was served.
I have used a similar position when describing the radical nature of the gospel.
Often I have heard people state how they want God to be fair. This could apply to just as well. I say there is nothing fair about the gospel. We get our sins forgiven and the free gift of eternal life by trusting in Christ Jesus.
Jesus gets tortured, humiliated, and murdered. What is fair about that?

This analgoy isn't perfect, but imagine you had a fine you couldn't pay. A big one. If it isn't paid, then you face imprisonment. Someone else comes along and pays your fine. Justice is satisfied.
Was it just? Well, not really. The guitly person didn't pay for their crime. And, and innocet person is out the money.

So, I see what you are asking. The caveat is the surrendered will of Christ to the cause. It is hard for us to comprehend His human nature. We get a glimpse of it in the garden of Gethsemane. Christ did wrestle with His human nature. It really is a mind trip. That someone can be God and man.

[Christian2]

I know the standard reasons why Jesus died, but my question today hast to do with the justness of God.

Facts:

Jesus predicted He would die.

Jesus said He would lay down His life for the sheep.

Jesus said He had the power to lay down His life and to take it up again.

Jesus asked the Father if there was another way -- "let this cup pass."

The Father said no and let Him die.

Jesus said, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me" while dying on the cross, quoting Psalm 22 as most scholars believe He was doing.

Jesus felt forsaken while on the cross because the sins of the world were on Him.

Jesus was innocent; Jesus never sinned.

Now the question: Was God just in letting an innocent man die for our sins? Could this be the one time when God was not just?

Thanks.

Since God has taken on the burden of the sins of the world onto himself (personified in the son) then yes, he was totally acting in a just manner. This is like asking if a person is acting justly for laying his life down to protect another.

I see what you mean. God suffered loss when Jesus died. For the first time He was separated from His Son/Word. So God Himself paid the penalty.

Do you agree?

[Christian7]

To answer your title, no. God had no part in the crucifixion. But had all the rest to do with His prior walk, reign, and ressurection.

[zoegirl]

The Judge is willingly paying His own fine....is that just? sure....the fine/penalty has been paid. Christ willingly sacrificed and paid that penalty.

Was it fair to Him? He certainly did not deserve our wrath....but that is His graciousness

[Canuckster1127]

God did not take Jesus' life. Jesus was perfect and death had no claim upon Him. Jesus gave His life voluntarily as an act of His will. That was even a declaration of Christ from the Cross. "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." It was not justice. It was grace and mercy as Jesus gave what he had to provide for us that which we could not have outside of Him. Substitutionary atonement it was. But that is only part of the story and only part of the whole of what Christ and God did for us.

[Christian2]

God did not take Jesus' life. Jesus was perfect and death had no claim upon Him. Jesus gave His life voluntarily as an act of His will. That was even a declaration of Christ from the Cross. "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." It was not justice. It was grace and mercy as Jesus gave what he had to provide for us that which we could not have outside of Him. Substitutionary atonement it was. But that is only part of the story and only part of the whole of what Christ and God did for us.

Doesn't what you said above (see red) conflict what is said in Isaiah 53:10?

Isaiah 53:10 (New International Version)

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [a] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

[jlay]

Doesn't what you said above (see red) conflict what is said in <A class=lbsBibleRef href="http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Isaiah%2053.10" target=_blank lbsReference="Isaiah 53.10|ESV">Isaiah 53:10</A>?

<A class=lbsBibleRef href="http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/Isaiah%2053.10" target=_blank lbsReference="Isaiah 53.10|ESV">Isaiah 53:10</A> (New International Version)

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [a] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

It could be a matter of arguing semantics.
It was God's will and plan. It was desinged and orchestrated by the God head. And yes, Jesus was/is a part of that.
Yet part of that plan was the surrendered will of Christ (The suffering servant) to the redemption process.

[Canuckster1127]

That says what God made of Christ life and death. It's on that basis that we have life in Christ.

Perhaps there's a semantic issue there as well. There's also something of the mystery of the trinity as well because how do you speak of God taking Jesus' life when Jesus is God Himself.

There's always a danger of overanalysis when speaking of the mechanics of how God works. The entire approach that seeks to break things down to that level is outside of the worldview of the Hebrew mindset from which the passage you quote was made.

[Christian2]

Perhaps there's a semantic issue there as well. There's also something of the mystery of the trinity as well because how do you speak of God taking Jesus' life when Jesus is God Himself.

Well, that is where I am -- since the Christ is the Word made flesh -- God -- then can we separate Jesus as man from the Christ who is the Word of God incarnate?

Since God cannot die, it was the Christ as man who died, but it seems to me that the Father also had a stake in this because when Jesus took the sins of man upon Himself, the Father could not look at Him the same way and; therefore, suffered loss.

[Kurieuo]

Since God cannot die, it was the Christ as man who died, but it seems to me that the Father also had a stake in this because when Jesus took the sins of man upon Himself, the Father could not look at Him the same way and; therefore, suffered loss.

I think it important to protect against dividing Christ into two as though there is the human Christ and divine Christ (two persons). It was Christ (one person) who died, and Christ was both fully human and fully divine. Thus, what is true of Christ's human experience, is true of Christ in his fully divine and fully human nature.

Given this, it is not entirely correct to say it was Christ as man who died, but rather it was Christ being fully human and fully divine who died. Thus, God literally did experience physical death through the person of Christ in human form. Now that can lead to a progression of other issues which each need to be dealt with as they arise. However, we should be careful not to loose sight of the core foundation that Christ is both fully human and fully divine inseparable.

[Byblos]

Since God cannot die, it was the Christ as man who died, but it seems to me that the Father also had a stake in this because when Jesus took the sins of man upon Himself, the Father could not look at Him the same way and; therefore, suffered loss.

I think it important to protect against dividing Christ into two as though there is the human Christ and divine Christ (two persons). It was Christ (one person) who died, and Christ was both fully human and fully divine. Thus, what is true of Christ's human experience, is true of Christ in his fully divine and fully human nature.

Given this, it is not entirely correct to say it was Christ as man who died, but rather it was Christ being fully human and fully divine who died. Thus, God literally did experience physical death through the person of Christ in human form. Now that can lead to a progression of other issues which each need to be dealt with as they arise. However, we should be careful not to loose sight of the core foundation that Christ is both fully human and fully divine inseparable.

It is perhaps in the way the subject is articulated that makes the difference. It is best said that Christ died according to his human nature but did not die according to his divine nature. But even according to his human nature, God would have experienced death nevertheless (though not dying Himself).

[Christian2]

Since God cannot die, it was the Christ as man who died, but it seems to me that the Father also had a stake in this because when Jesus took the sins of man upon Himself, the Father could not look at Him the same way and; therefore, suffered loss.

I think it important to protect against dividing Christ into two as though there is the human Christ and divine Christ (two persons). It was Christ (one person) who died, and Christ was both fully human and fully divine. Thus, what is true of Christ's human experience, is true of Christ in his fully divine and fully human nature.

Given this, it is not entirely correct to say it was Christ as man who died, but rather it was Christ being fully human and fully divine who died. Thus, God literally did experience physical death through the person of Christ in human form. Now that can lead to a progression of other issues which each need to be dealt with as they arise. However, we should be careful not to loose sight of the core foundation that Christ is both fully human and fully divine inseparable.

I'm trying not to divide Christ. How we choose our words is very important.

[Christian2]

Since God cannot die, it was the Christ as man who died, but it seems to me that the Father also had a stake in this because when Jesus took the sins of man upon Himself, the Father could not look at Him the same way and; therefore, suffered loss.

I think it important to protect against dividing Christ into two as though there is the human Christ and divine Christ (two persons). It was Christ (one person) who died, and Christ was both fully human and fully divine. Thus, what is true of Christ's human experience, is true of Christ in his fully divine and fully human nature.

Given this, it is not entirely correct to say it was Christ as man who died, but rather it was Christ being fully human and fully divine who died. Thus, God literally did experience physical death through the person of Christ in human form. Now that can lead to a progression of other issues which each need to be dealt with as they arise. However, we should be careful not to loose sight of the core foundation that Christ is both fully human and fully divine inseparable.

It is perhaps in the way the subject is articulated that makes the difference. It is best said that Christ died according to his human nature but did not die according to his divine nature. But even according to his human nature, God would have experienced death nevertheless (though not dying Himself).

God would have experienced death before the Word was separated from the Father for a period of 3 days? Is that what you are saying? Thanks.