The Necessity Of Jesus' Death

[jchristopher]

Why was it necessary for Jesus to give up his life and die in order to loose the bands of death and bring to pass the resurrection for all mankind, to redeem us from both the spiritual and temporal death?

[rodheadlee]

I believe one of the reasons was to show us He had the power to pick up his life again.

[teddyaware]

Why was it necessary for Jesus to give up his life and die in order to loose the bands of death and bring to pass the resurrection for all mankind, to redeem us from both the spiritual and temporal death?

At the time of the Saviour's death on the cross, He was an infinite and eternal being who was therefore, unlike you and I, capable of making an infinite and eternal sacrifice. He possessed the power to live forever into infinity as a tabernacled being of flesh, bone and blood, and also He possessed the an eternal fullness of the Spirit, thereby possessing the eternal fullness of all the gifts and powers of God.

 

When the Lord made His atoning sacrifice He not only voluntarily suffered physical death, bleeding out the precious blood that would have otherwise enabled Him to live on forever, but He suffered spiritual death as well, bleeding out, if you will, the Spiritual influence that made Him God and one with His Father in full perfection of eternal unity.

 

By sacrificing and yielding up the power that would have enabled Him to live on forever in a physical body; by voluntarily yielding up the Eternal Spirit that made possible his perfect unity with the Father; by descending into hell bereft of His Father's presence and influence, to suffer spiritual punishment as if He was the very greatest of sinners (he descended into spiritual woe even lower than the sons of perdition), the Saviour sacrificed all He was and all He possessed so that we, his brethren and sisters, might possess the power to live forever in physical bodies and enjoy an infinite and eternal fullness of the Spirit and presence of God. This is, at least in part, what is meant by the infinite and eternal sacrifice of the Son of God. 

 

By virtue of the consummate moral excellence of His infinite and eternal physical and spiritual sacrifice -- by submitting to the will of the Father in all things -- the Saviour was now made worthy of the right to be restored to His previously perfect spiritual state and privileges, but now with the added blessing of a glorified resurrected body of flesh and bone. By living and perfectly embodying the everlasting law of sacrifice, the Saviour lost his perfect life only to find it again in a realm of eternal splendor.

25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. (Matthew 16)

Edited May 31, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

Why was it necessary for Jesus to give up his life and die in order to loose the bands of death and bring to pass the resurrection for all mankind, to redeem us from both the spiritual and temporal death?

I think it has to do with the law of opposition and that He had to descend below all things to be able to ascend above all things, physically and spiritually, eternally and temporally. Related to this is the principle that “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” Every step in the cycle of progress is both a birth and a death of sorts.

[JAHS]

I don't think there really is an answer to your question as to why it had to be done. There are explanations about the details of the atonement process explained in the scriptures, but I think that there is just some eternal principle involved that requires the existence of it. It's like asking "why is there a God?"  If there have been universes with their own Gods in the eternal past and will be in the eternal future doing the same thing, there is no way to answer why they exist; they just do. To ask why implies that somewhere along the way someone made a decision to make the atonement necessary. But if it is an eternal principle with no beginning or end, such a decision could never have been made.

[3DOP]

Why was it necessary for Jesus to give up his life and die in order to loose the bands of death and bring to pass the resurrection for all mankind, to redeem us from both the spiritual and temporal death?

 

I realize you are not Catholic but I am pretty sure Mormons think we are right some of the time. Heh. It seems like you might be interested in a few questions that were answered by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. The questions are answered in the affirmative or negative, or both, include objections to the conclusion, arguments for the conclusion, and qualifications regarding the meaning of words (This would be why the answer might be in both the affirmative and negative).

 

These are all from Part Three, Question 46, and the first four articles attached to the question:

 

1) Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race? Answered in the affirmative with a qualification regarding meanings of the word necessary.

 

2) Whether there was any other possible way of human deliverance besides the Passion of Christ? Answered in the affirmative and the negative depending upon how one uses the word possible.

 

3) Whether there was any more suitable way of delivering the human race than by Christ's Passion? Answered in the negative, arguing that it was more appropriate that humanity be delivered by Christ's Passion than by God's good will.

 

4) Whether Christ ought to have suffered on the Cross? Answered in the affirmative with seven reasons.

 

 http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm

Edited May 31, 2014 by 3DOP

[jchristopher]

@Teddyaware

Wow. Would you be able to sum that up in layman's terms, maybe 2 or 3 sentences?

Edited May 31, 2014 by jchristopher

[teddyaware]

@Teddyaware

Wow. Would you be able to sum that up in layman's terms, maybe 2 or 3 sentences?

At the time of His death, the Saviour possessed the power to live forever physically and He also enjoyed the fullness of the presence and power of the Father. Jesus wanted to give us the power to live forever physically and also wanted bestow upon us the fullness of the Father's presence and power. In order to accomplish this, He sacrificed the sacred blood that would have otherwise kept His earthly body alive forever, and He also sacrificed the fullness of the Father's presence and power by descending into hell where the Father's Spirit was withdrawn from Him. So he sacrificed both His blood and the presence of the Father's Spirit so that we might enjoy all the same blessings He possessed.

Edited May 31, 2014 by teddyaware

[jchristopher]

I think it has to do with the law of opposition and that He had to descend below all things to be able to ascend above all things, physically and spiritually, eternally and temporally. Related to this is the principle that “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” Every step in the cycle of progress is both a birth and a death of sorts.

Interesting thought. Maybe that's what the scriptures mean when they say there must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. I'm not familiar with the corn of wheat, but I think the birth and death cycle might just be related to mortality.

[CV75]

Interesting thought. Maybe that's what the scriptures mean when they say there must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. I'm not familiar with the corn of wheat, but I think the birth and death cycle might just be related to mortality.

It's from John 12:24-36 and has to do with Jesus foretelling His death, and why it was necessary.

 

I agree that the Lord's descent below and ascent above all things is an expression of His infinite and eternal nature, which He didn't keep for Himself alone but shared (or gave up, or sacrificed) in our behalf. Of course this resulted in His both "bringing forth much fruit" and "life eternal" for Himself and others ("where I am, there shall also my servant be") just as the Father confirmed ("I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.").

 

I think every step in progression is due to the "death" of the former state and the "birth" of the new.state of being. When we came into mortality, our pre-mortal life "died" and our mortal life began. When we die, our mortal life ends but our time in the spirit world begins. When we are resurrected, our life in the spirit world ends and our eternal life begins. In exaltation, each new continuation of the seeds adds glory upon glory, so in that sense the former condition ends and the new one begins. When we progress from step to step in this life and become more spiritual, our old self "dies" and our new self is "born."

[SeekerB]

To ask why implies that somewhere along the way someone made a decision to make the atonement necessary.

 

Actually, I think that is exactly what happened.  This life is a test.  The Celestial Kingdom and exaltation are the goals.  A Savior and the Atonement is the method used to sanctify those who will be given all the Father hath.

[jchristopher]

I don't think there really is an answer to your question as to why it had to be done. There are explanations about the details of the atonement process explained in the scriptures, but I think that there is just some eternal principle involved that requires the existence of it. It's like asking "why is there a God?"  If there have been universes with their own Gods in the eternal past and will be in the eternal future doing the same thing, there is no way to answer why they exist; they just do. To ask why implies that somewhere along the way someone made a decision to make the atonement necessary. But if it is an eternal principle with no beginning or end, such a decision could never have been made.

Hmmm...I don't know how I feel about the notion of there being no answer to my question. I'm sure there is an eternal principle that requires this, but that is what I am trying to understand. I don't think asking "why is there a God?" to be the same thing because my question is directly at more of the heart of what we are commanded to have faith in, that is, the atonement of Jesus Christ. 

[jchristopher]

I realize you are not Catholic but I am pretty sure Mormons think we are right some of the time. Heh. It seems like you might be interested in a few questions that were answered by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. The questions are answered in the affirmative or negative, or both, include objections to the conclusion, arguments for the conclusion, and qualifications regarding the meaning of words (This would be why the answer might be in both the affirmative and negative).

 

These are all from Part Three, Question 46, and the first four articles attached to the question:

 

1) Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race? Answered in the affirmative with a qualification regarding meanings of the word necessary.

 

2) Whether there was any other possible way of human deliverance besides the Passion of Christ? Answered in the affirmative and the negative depending upon how one uses the word possible.

 

3) Whether there was any more suitable way of delivering the human race than by Christ's Passion? Answered in the negative, arguing that it was more appropriate that humanity be delivered by Christ's Passion than by God's good will.

 

4) Whether Christ ought to have suffered on the Cross? Answered in the affirmative with seven reasons.

 

 http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm

Article 1. Whether it was necessary for Christ to suffer for the deliverance of the human race?

Objection 2. Further, what is necessary is opposed to what is voluntary. But Christ suffered of His own will; for it is written (Isaiah 53:7): "He was offered because it was His own will." Therefore it was not necessary for Him to suffer.

 

Good readings. I enjoyed this. I just thought I'd share an objection I have with the above listed objection to Article 1. I believe that Christ's suffering was both necessary and voluntary. Voluntary because Jehovah could have turned down the Father's plan to make him our Savior, even though it was absolutely necessary that there be a Savior for mankind (assuming that being the Savior meant suffering greatly). He didn't have to do it. Someone else would have been sent. It's hard for me to say if Jehovah/Jesus could have chosen to quit his mission as our Savior because it's hard for me to imagine the implications of that and how it would make God look a little less omniscient than we thought him to be...ummm...I think I may be digressing  

[BCSpace]

Why was it necessary for Jesus to give up his life and die in order to loose the bands of death and bring to pass the resurrection for all mankind, to redeem us from both the spiritual and temporal death?

 

 

I think the closest we'll get to an answer in this life is that a God had to do it. As for why it's set up that way and why and how it works, I believe we are going to have to wait.

[teddyaware]

I think the closest we'll get to an answer in this life is that a God had to do it. As for why it's set up that way and why and how it works, I believe we are going to have to wait.

While the following answer to the question as to "why it's set up that way" may be too brief and utterly lacking in detail to satisfy someone who's looking for definitive explanations, the simple fact of the matter is that the reason why the Father set things up the way He did is because there is no other possible way He could set things up, and the Book of Mormon makes this perfectly clear.

As for the additional two questions asking why the Father set up the plan of salvation the way He did and how He set up the plan of salvation in the way He did, the Book of Mormon goes on in great detail giving superb answers to both of those questions. And if one comprehends what's written on the pages of that great book concerning the redeeming role of Christ in the plan of salvation, then that man can know the answers to those questions in this life. If one does not comprehend the Christological content of the Book of Mormon, that doesn't mean great answers aren't already there for the taking.

Indeed, the Book of Mormon tells us that if there were no Christ, not even God the Father Himself could exist.

"For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation..." (2 Nephi 11)

For all eons past and all future eons into endless eternity, there is no other way for God to save and exalt His creations except through the atoning sacrifice of Christ. There is no other way...

Edited June 1, 2014 by teddyaware

[halconero]

Depends who you ask. The different Gospel, Epistle, and even Book of Mormon writers have different goals and emphasis with regards to the death of Christ. Here's a short list (and extremely simplified list):

Matthew: As fulfillment of prophecy, thus proving the Hebrew Bible and validating the emphasis of deeper obedience to the principles of Mosaic law, which principles bring salvation.

Mark: The crucifixion of God's Son is saves the repentant

Luke: The death of God's Son is so heinous (low social class death, torture, innocence of Jesus) that such an act drives the wicked to repent.

John: Jesus is the perfect Passover sacrifice, God in the Flesh, and his death (and resurrection) are a sign to the world that he is such. This draws men to Christ, persuades them to believe that he is the Son of God, and they are thereby saved.

Nephi: A careful reading of Nephi's (not Lehi's or Jacob's, but specifically Nephi's teachings) references to the crucifixion of Christ ties it with intimately with the scattering and restoration of Israel. For Nephi, the crucifixion of Christ was necessary so the love and healing, both of which he references, are not limited to the Jews in Israel, but are scattered around the world.

Alma: His most famous discourses on the death of Christ deal with eternal law. Justice and mercy. The laws broken through sin are eternal and infinite, because the God who made them is eternal and infinite. The only one capable of satisfy the eternal consequences of such laws is God himself. Therefore the Son of God, suffers the eternal and infinite pain, anguish, and consequences of sin on our behalf. The wages of sin are death, which he payed, but because he didn't any wages death can hold no claim on him. The price he exacts his spiritual and physical resurrection given mercifully to humanity.

I could go on, but this should suffice. If you want one concise answer on why Christ had to die, there is really only one thing all Gospel writers can agree on: to save us.

[CV75]

Why was it necessary for Jesus to give up his life and die in order to loose the bands of death and bring to pass the resurrection for all mankind, to redeem us from both the spiritual and temporal death?

Another way of answering this is that He asks nothing of us that He isn’t willing to do, or hasn’t actually done. So He had to die. In light of Abraham 3:19, He actually asks us to do less than what He has done. He asks us to give up our lives (in various ways, both through the mortal experience and selflessness and in following Him) but not to do anything which we cannot possibly do for ourselves (such as loose the bands of death and sin).

[JAHS]

Hmmm...I don't know how I feel about the notion of there being no answer to my question. I'm sure there is an eternal principle that requires this, but that is what I am trying to understand. I don't think asking "why is there a God?" to be the same thing because my question is directly at more of the heart of what we are commanded to have faith in, that is, the atonement of Jesus Christ. 

 

Through the scriptures I can tell you why Jesus had to be the one to do it, but because it is an eternal principle I can not tell you why "someone" had to do it the way it was done or why the way it was done somehow paid the price for my sins. I can't understand the cause and effect of such an act. However, I can have faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ if you are talking about the fact that Jesus Christ performed the atonement for me and everyone.  I have to have faith that the principle exists without understanding why. I have been trying to understand it for 60 years and have decided I must just accept it without knowing why.

[knowone]

Why was it necessary for Jesus to give up his life and die in order to loose the bands of death and bring to pass the resurrection for all mankind, to redeem us from both the spiritual and temporal death?

 

to fulfill the plan of the Father.