"Jesus had to be God to atone for our sins." Really? Got a Scripture for that?
Many people have said to me the last months that Jesus had to be
God to atone for our sins. My challenge is to show me Scriptures that say so. If such a claim is true, it should be explained in
the Scripture from front to back, from one side to the other. If there is no
Scripture that says that, then we should rethink our theology before making
such a claim. Perhaps that claim is a creation of the human mind (satanically
inspired?). The claim in effect is telling God the conditions under which we
will accept Him and His Messiah. It is telling God, “I won’t accept you
unless You die”.
But we shouldn’t tell our Maker what He must do. Israel tried that
numerous times. It never worked (e.g., Isa. 45:9-10). We don’t make the rules
for forgiveness of sin, atonement, or for any of our relationship with God. God
tells us what is necessary. God said to man “You will die”. Satan says “Man, you won’t die.” Man thinks and says, “I (my real self, my
spirit) won’t die, but God, you must die”.
God has told us that the death of the human Servant Messiah
descended from David, Jesus, is sufficient for atonement for sin. But we want
to tell God, “No, I won’t accept the death and resurrection of your human
Messiah. That’s not enough. God, You must die.”
Other Trinitarians say, “No, God didn’t die, only the human Jesus
died”. But the Trinitarian's “two-natured” Jesus, who supposedly was both “fully
God and fully man”, brings no redemption because the God-nature, being immortal
by definition, did not die. The Bible says we have been reconciled to God by
the death of his Son (Rom. 5: 10). Either the Son of God died
and we have redemption, or “God the Son” did not die (just his human nature!?)
and we are yet in our sins!
The falsity of this Trinitarian claim is detected by a little
cross examination. The Trinitarian says that Jesus had to be God to atone for
mankind’s sin. But then it is claimed that God didn’t die, only the human Jesus
died. The very thing the Trinitarian claims was necessary for the
forgiveness of sin, didn’t happen.
That Trinitarians can't agree on such a critical question as
"Did God die?" is evidence that they have a misconceived idea of who
God is. They are not thinking biblically.
Quite to the contrary of the "deity of Christ" claim, the Bible says that it was indeed necessary that the mediatorial restoration of humankind come through a human being, not through a god-man.
"For if many died through the trespass of one man, much
more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus
Christ abounded for many"
(Romans 5:15).
"For
as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience
many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:19).
"For
there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, a man Christ
Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5).
The "Jesus had to be God to atone for our sins" claim is in direct contradiction to the Scriptures, and in the end tries to eliminate the one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.
Comments
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 1 Cor. 15:21
For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Rom. 5:19
It is man-to-man. 1:1.
After thinking a little it became obvious that God cannot die, so only a man is qualified. A spotless, sinless man.
For that man to also somehow be God would be cheating, for it would mean that he was not according to the requirement of Hebrews 2:17, "he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people."
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6, ESV)
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (ESV)
Daniel 7:13–14
“I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed. (ESV)
Psalm 45:2–7
You are the most handsome of the sons of men;
grace is poured upon your lips;
therefore God has blessed you forever.
Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one,
in your splendor and majesty!
In your majesty ride out victoriously
for the cause of truth and meekness and righteousness;
let your right hand teach you awesome deeds!
Your arrows are sharp
in the heart of the king's enemies;
the peoples fall under you.
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.
The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;
you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness.
Therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions; (ESV)
Apparently you quote the other verses (Isa. 9:6, 7:14, Dan. 7, Psa. 45) as evidence that the Messiah is God? But that is not my question. My question asks for a Scripture that says that Jesus had to be God to atone for our sin. In any case, neither Jesus nor any New Testament author appealed to the verses you mentioned to show the deity of Messiah. If you are interested to hear my understanding of, e.g., Isaiah 9:6, see the link below. "Blessed by the God and Father of or Lord Jesus the Messiah..." https://restitutio.org/2018/11/29/45-misunderstood-texts-about-jesus-3-bill-schlegel/
The same can be said of the work "Trinity". You say that can't be found in the Bible so it is not true. But, you can't find "iPhone" in the Bible ... and it's real.
And, as I was taught - to be off on who Jesus really is will result in further erroneous beliefs .... such as ... The Holy Spirit is not a person.
The whole problem stems from faulty hermeneutics to prove your main presupposition (Jesus is not God).
Let US make man in OUR image, in OUR likeness.
Gen. 1:26 ¶ Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. ......
Gen. 1:27 ¶ So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him; ....
They are saying a couple of things 1: the work of angels is inferred. When it says in Isaiah 44:24 that God created ALL BY MYSELF that doesn't mean He did it alone. 2: Jesus was announcing to the sons of god what He was going to do.
Do you see the problem with the first answer? It's exactly what you have just blogged about. All by myself doesn't mean all by myself. It could include angels. I could say "Really? Angels involved in creation?. Got a Scripture for that?"
#2 ..... It doesn't take into account the "us" and "our" image. Where does it say that angels are created in God's image so therefore God said Let us make man in OUR image? Really? Got a Scripture for that?
I listened to the restitutio podcast as you suggested and left a comment there, too. False assumptions in order to try discredit the deity of Jesus Christ. It's the same hermeneutics that is employed by most all unitarians - twist the Scripture to make it fit.
Back to the topic of this post: it is a twisting, indeed a fabrication of Scriptures to claim that God must die.
Based on the hermeneutic you use regarding Thomas calling Jesus God, you should with even more firm conviction be proclaiming that Peter is Satan. Notice that Peter did not deny being Satan! Note also that Jesus' words ought to be of much greater authority than Thomas' words. So, if you are going to be consistent in your hermeneutic, please defend the teaching here that Peter is Satan. This would logically lead to understanding that Peter is Satan incarnate, that his mother was the mother of Satan, and even that Peter was the serpent in the Garden of Eden, and who may have preexisted creation!
Of course, I doubt you will claim that Peter is Satan. Why? Because your theology will not allow it. But then you are placing your theology above your principles of hermeneutics! Jesus spoke directly and very plainly. He called Peter Satan, just as Thomas called Jesus God!
Doesn't it make more sense to realize that what we are reading in the Bible is a translation from Aramaic to Greek to English? We need to understand what someone in first century Israel, speaking Aramaic, would have meant when using this kind of language. Just because we don't speak this way is not an acceptable excuse to have bad theology. Please realize that Aramaic (like Hebrew) is a more concrete language, quite a bit different than abstract languages like Greek or English. Jesus and Thomas were speaking according to function, which is perfectly acceptable in Aramaic and does not introduce any new doctrine. Nobody at the time these incidents happened would have remotely thought that Jesus was considering Peter as the literal Satan, nor that Thomas thought that Jesus was literally the one true God.
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/736cfcdc-0eaa-4e84-8bf2-045785c8eebe/downloads/Knock%2C%20Knock%2C%20Let%20Me%20in!.pdf?ver=1558050228342