I often pondered this as I sat through religion class in my parochial grade school. If suicide is the deliberate taking of your own life, in what way is Christ’s death different then suicide by cop?
(For any unfamiliar with the term, suicide by cop is where an individual places themselves into a situation where the police have no choice but to use deadly force.)
I think your analogy is flawed. It might be more appropriate to compare Christ with the members of the FDNY who lost their lives attempting to save others on 11 September. It was the salvation of others that was their goal and not their own demise as in your suicide by cop idea. Similarly, the firefighters could have saved their own lives by taking the more prudent course of staying clear.
Besides, Jesus was doing his Father’s will. It wasn’t about what Jesus wanted at that moment. In the garden Jesus pleaded; * O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt* (Matthew 26:39).
Excellent answer Gest. 
But couldn’t God say “Let there be a non-suicicide way t offer everyone a second chance in accordance with justice?”
Is it possible that it wasn’t exactly suicide as He knew he’d be in heaven afterwards, and could come back to earth if he had to?
I think Jesus’s act could be more accurately likened to martyrism, rather than suicide. A martyr is often someone who could have avoided death by renouncing their faith, but chose not to. This is not considered the grave sin of suicide, but a holy act.
In a similar vein, we generally don’t consider soldiers to be suicidal, although they could have avoided the possibility of being killed by not enlisting. Nor do many people consider them murderers. In both cases, intent is more important than the result, and they are (so to speak) operating under a higher power. Suicide in the usual sense is a solitary and self-oriented–if not selfish–act.
There’s a significant difference between taking one’s own life and giving it. That’s effectively what Gest is saying, and that’s the difference I’d draw.
I think the flaw is in comparing Christ to FDNY. Unlike Christ, the FDNY member does not posses the ability to both save the victim, and save themselves. As an all powerful God, Christ could certainly have found another way to save us.
I have often heard the analogy of a soldier laying down his life so that his comrades could live. For the soldier, there are two options, live and other die, or die and others live. Of course, the soldier isn’t in possession of God like powers. If he or she was, wouldn’t we expect save others and not die ourselves?
If we assume that Jesus is the Lord, we should also assume unlimited options. Why choose death?
Why not demonstrate that he is Lord by not dying in spite of the physical assault?
Is this the same rationale that Palestinian suicide bombers use? Are we suggesting that the strength of our belief, in the reference to Palestinian issue, justifies the means?
I think that this means the perception of the observer determines if it is suicide or martyrism.
I struggle with that as well. I have struggled to believed that God would command Abraham to kill his son, or for his own son to accept avoidable suffering
If he did wish for such things, what type of Father would that make him?
Worst yet, here in Philadelphia we have the occasional drug bust that turns out to be a family affair. Should the offspring of the dealer be granted clemency because he was doing his Father’s will?
Seen as a preordained act, it accorded with many similar myths that all insisted on this sacrifice; this death and renewal. There was no more effective way to bring across this message than by passive resistance.
It is also the perfect clause for keeping worshippers regardless of the outcome. Or, rather, knowing that open rebellion in a Roman colony would bring the wrath of the Empire on Christ’s head, the emphasis was placed on Jesus’ execution as a sign of victory: “Look he’s helpless now, he’s being stabbed with spears and spat on, he’s struggling under the crucifix… oop, now He’s dead” “See I told you he’s the Messiah”
If you look at the passages where the Roman beaurecracy are making Jesus account for his insurrection, he is more circumspect than when he is preaching to receptive Israelites so his role was very like cult leaders now, perpetually risking approbation.
Would I do such a thing to my own son? No, of course not and you probably wouldn’t either but by equating God the Father in contrast with human thoughts, logic and emotions is shortstepping God’s wisdom. We simply cannot comprehend or lay humanistic logic in God’s actions. It says in the Bible (sorry I cannot locate it at the moment) that his ways are not our ways. I take rest in that passage. I mean, c’mon…wouldn’t it make more sense to have Jesus Christ born as majestic as the ultimate “golden child”? Shouldn’t he have been born famous, powerful and wealthy as an Earthly king? Shouldn’t he had been born in such a style that the world would have NO DOUBT that this man was the messiah and he would strike awe in the hearts of all? No…God had him born unto two poor travelers in a common, dirty animal stable. Outside of the maggi and Mary and Josehp, who else knew this WAS the messiah of the old testament? Nobody. Why? God’s ways are not our own.
As for me? I’m SO glad that Jesus laid his earthly life down. That’s the only way to salvation. His atonement for the world’s sins is the only way out…provided you believe on him. To me it’s easy to see that Jesus was not of this world. He either was who he said he was…or he was a raving lunatic. I trust in him.
You’re missing the point that a true matyr is someone who allows himself to be killed, not someone who kills himself.
“For my thoughts are not your thought,
nor your ways my ways, says the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways,
and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55, about verse 8)
I congratulate you on an excellent witness to what God did in Christ. There are, however, two questions that are left unanswered, and I would very much like to see your take, or that of another evangelical Christian, on the answers:
Why was it necessary for Christ to die in order to effect the salvation of all? I grant that under the Law, expiation was paid in blood – but that’s the Law given by the God who is proposing to pay that debt Himself in the person of His Son (one has to remember that we’re not talking God =Father vs. Jesus =Son here; Jesus is as much God as His Father). In other words, it had to be that way only because He made it to be that way – which is no answer; why couldn’t He have done something else? The only answer I can come up with is that it’s human nature – “for if I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto Myself” – it took that sort of sacrifice to touch people emotionally and turn them to Him. And I’m not at all comfortable with that.
Jesus did not Himself claim to be the Second Person of the Trinity – He claimed a mystical union with His Father at several points, including “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” – but there is not in the Gospels any overt claim to Godhood on His part, and only a inferential claim to Messiahhood. I myself accept Him as Savior and Lord, and believe in Him as the Son of God Incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity. And I think that this is the logical conclusion to be drawn from what He did have to say about Himself, and what John and Paul had to say about Him. But I do not see any necessity in accepting that definition. How do you arrive at the necessity of the Lewisian trichotomy: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?
These are not asked in a spirit of controversy, but to provide some straight answers to difficult questions – and ones that I’m not altogether comfortable trying to answer myself.
By this, I mean no offense:
The fact is, nobody has provided a satisfactory explanation for why Jesus had to endure the ordeal.
Given that this at the center of the religion, one would think this would be a higher priority.
The usual reason is something along the lines of “our sins had to be atoned for” or " a price had to be paid for man’s wickedness". This is silly; clearly, God could forgive people without demanding blood.
More clever pundits say something along the lines of, “It wasn’t because God HAD to do it that way. He chose to, because it would be easier for us to understand.”. Again, an omnipotent God would presumably be able to come up with a way to do things that wouldn’t neccesitate a brutal death. Of course, the God of the Bible seems to prefer bloody solutions, at times. Noah’s Flood, anybody?
At the end, the answer is “We can’t possibly understand. It just is.”. Personally, I don’t accept that, but I respect the beliefs of those who do.
Further, there’s also an issue of whether Jesus would actually suffer.
Couldn’t an omnipotent God turn pain into pleasure?
The radical answer as to why would be to treat the question “why?” in the same way as that old saw “have you stopped beating your spouse yet?”–in that, the correct answer is to not answer it in the terms it presupposes. To reframe the question.
My answer is that it was not necessary–not in a metaphysical sense. His execution was a product of the time and place into which the Word instantiated into Flesh; to stop the chain of physical formation-events that resulted in a body dying in agony on a cross (among–and it distresses me how often Christians simply ignore this in their witnessing–many other bodies in likewise agony, discounting them as lesser despite His own word as to what speaking of the least of His brethren meant) would have meant resorting to violence, or taking away the free will of large parts of the chain of people involved in the execution. All that suffering could have not happened, history could have changed radically with only a handful of people making the harder choices–just like every historical moment. Just like now. That’s the lesson in the crucifixion. That lesson hasn’t been lost, it just doesn’t get much PR. Which seems a shame.
This is, of course, not a Christian answer by the vast majority of definition. It likely will not be for a very long time, if ever. But I am at peace with it.
My own thoughts have always been along the lines of this. We have short memories and often lack gratitude. Already, we have generations that do not appriciate the sacrifice of those who died in WWII to protect their freedom.
My thoughts were that our Lord realized the nature of man and, of course, knew that any lesser gesture would be quickly forgotten.
I agree with the comments regarding free will.
Not an answer to my own post, but a reply all the same.
Thank you sir.
You’re have a good point in that it would seem that God is utilizing human nature as a “ploy” as it were in order to draw people to Jesus. Knowing that Jesus physically died for me is heart rendering, no doubt. However, I think you answered your own question when you stated, …it had to be that way only because He made it to be that way. I agree. How could sinners with faith be saved if Christ didn’t die? God the Father is so thoroughly Holy that he cannot allow sinners in his presence…however God so loved us anyway that he allowed an avenue out by of hell by allowing his Son to die and pay for our debt…once and forever. (see John 3:16 for pointed clarification). This was the law given to Moses prior to Christ in that to pay your debt, a sacrifice was needed and blood must be shed to atone for one’s sins. How could God change that whenever it was Jesus’s time on Earth? That would mean that God would would contradict his methodology of acceptance for sinners. Remember Jesus said that Every kingdom divided against itself is brought into desolation: and a house divided against a house falleth (Luke 11:17). There’s a lesson in that. God gave us sinners the perfect sacrifice to atone for ALL who step up and simply believe.
Being “comfortable” with it doesn’t really matter. Nobody is comfortable with the idea of sacrificing one’s son for ANYTHING…that’s why God is so magnificent. Jesus knew it too. It was his role to fufill.
I take a great deal of solace when reading that Jesus said I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep (John 10:11).
I think it’s interesting that you are taking two sides to your own point. You claim that Jesus did not overtly “claim to Godhead on his part, and only a inferential claim to Messiahhood” yet you yourself accept him as Savior and “Lord”…you yourself accepted him as one of the “Lewisian trichotomy” labels. (By the way…I have no idea what that means…I’m just using context clues to drive on with my point). You ask about the “necessity” of acceptance of the defintions. What else have you got to go on with the Gospel’s message? My point is that really once one hears or reads seriously about Jesus Christ there really is only three (I originally stated two but you’re right there are three) reactions to Jesus Christ of the Gospels. Unbelievers can take Jesus and can reject him as either a talented, deceptive con artist who is an outright liar that got what he deserved…or one could reject him as a sad, disturbed mental case who was so deluded that it’s a crime his teachings are misleading millions of people around the globe. However there is another wonderful possibility when reading the Gospels and taking all the scriptures into account…the only other viable conclusion one could make is he was who he said he was. There are SO many examples of Jesus’s lessons, parables, replies, questions and finally actions to draw one to him as it is written that I don’t have enough time to do it here. However, consider thoroughly the power in these words; I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6). Jesus Christ was adament about why he was here and his ultimate purpose. He came and went and said he’s coming again. Until then, the rest is up to you and what you do with what is written. I don’t see how anyone could NOT view Christ as one of the three definitions. One either accepts or rejects as liar, lunatic or lord. I would imagine, one could probably fine tune another twist for rejection but it would still be based upon that original trichotomy would it not?
I realize they are asked in the spirit of controversy and I just want to say that if ANY of my replies come across as sarcastic or insulting…please, I don’t mean any of it that way. I’m always apprehensive in posting regarding this stuff just due to the fact that I may unintentionally put forth a differnt “tone” in which I was actually writing from.
By the way, Polycarp…I enjoy your posts…always thought provoking!
Philly Style, I believe that when Jesus incarnated on our world He put aside ALL His Godliness and lived among us solely in human form. Thus He had no godly powers with which to prevent His own crucifixion. One may ask, what about His miracles? I believe those were the result of spiritual gifts given to Him by the Father and which were no greater than similar gifts given to other godly men through the ages; for example, there have been prophets able to talk to God, heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, etc. During His entire time here He did no more than any of us could do if we developed as close a relationship with the Father as He did. So in this light, in His human form He could not prevent His crucifixion. To do so He would have had to reassume His God powers; and that would have been to fail in His mission.
As to the purpose of His mission: Why did He have to die anyway? Or, why couldn’t we all just be forgiven without blood? Imagine a scenario for illustration. (Granted, no analogy is going to be perfect.) Suppose a man commits a capital offence and is sentenced to death. However, this man’s father loves him a great deal and doesn’t want to see his son killed; so the father asks the judge if HE – the father – can stand in his son’s place to be executed. Although it’s an unusual request the judge grants it, and the father is executed in place of the son. In this scenario did the father commit suicide? Likewise, would justice have been served if no one had been executed? What would have been the result if the judge had said let’s just do away with the law that your son broke so that there’s no chance that he or anyone else will again be sentenced to death?
(Please don’t gloss over that last sentence lightly. What WOULD be the result if ALL law were done away with so that no one would have to be punished? If you answer there must be a law, then there must also be a penalty for breaking it.)
As for why there’s even a death penalty, that’s a different issue. People’s positions tend to vary depending, at least to a degree, on whether or not they’ve been close to the commission of a capital offence, and if so, on which side. If you’re a relative of the perpetrator, your against capital punishment; if a loved one of the victim, you’re for it (generally speaking). And, of course the criminal himself is virtually never in favor of it. Those who’ve never been touched by violent crime can take an idealistic view and say there are alternatives to punishment.