Q: A couple of weeks ago you spoke about a group of people who sacrificed their first born child as an offering – and that sounds so awful to us, but God sacrificed His son for us and we think it’s a noble, worthy cause?? Why would a father do that to his child? And I guess Jesus had a choice, but did he really have a choice – a little bit of guilt there – taking on the sin of the world? Why would he allow his son to go through that? He is supposed to be a loving God. The other people who did it were monsters for it, but God is love?
A: There is a world of difference between the two. As you already point out, Jesus had a choice. He said, “No one takes my life from me. I lay it down on my accord.” “The good shepherd lays down his life for...
...the sheep.” “Greater love has no one than this; that a man lay his life down for his friends.” In Galatians Paul said, “the son of God loved me and gave himself up for me.”
God, the Father, gave his son as a gift to the world. The son, as a gift to us, offered himself as the Lamb of God, taking away the sins of the world. Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” To say that the Father did this to Jesus misses the key point that the Father, through his son, took the cross upon himself. They are one.
God allowed his son to go through the agonies of the cross because of his love for us. The penalty for sin is death. That is what God established in the garden and throughout history. Sin is a serious matter. Just as prison time is required for some crimes, blood is required for sin. Justice demanded that our blood be shed. Mercy meant Jesus shed his blood on our behalf. The One sacrificed for the many that the many could be saved.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Why did the Father allow Jesus to die?
Friday, February 1, 2008
God's Name?
Q: My problem with God is his name. I grew up “in the church” and “God” was someone that I had to be good for. “God” became like a parent who only paid attention to me if I was “bad”. I am glad God has many names. I need a new name for God.
A: I realize this is not a question per se, but for some reason I was drawn to your statement. Your problem is pretty common. People have bad experiences all the time and sometimes those experiences color our ...
view or understanding of God. It is true that there are many names used for the God of the Bible. The truth is that no name will ever fully capture the fullness of God.
One name commonly used by follows of Christ to refer to God is the name--Father. I tend to like this name a lot because it helps me understand that no matter my situation or circumstance God will always be as close as a Father. He is the perfect Father without a doubt. I think one of the reasons I relate to this name, Father, is because I guess on some levels I have always longed for a closer relationship with my earthly Father. I don’t know if you can relate to this at all? I know of people who have had retched fathers and it is terribly difficult for them to refer to God as Father. However, to completely eliminate this name for God is to in some way lose an aspect of how God has revealed himself to us. The one thing I say to people that struggle with this name for God is that God wants to redeem and heal the brokenness that inhibits someone from experiencing him as Father.I only use the “Father” example to make the point that the names we use matter, and that if certain names are left out because of our difficult experiences or family history we run the risk of losing an important aspect or attribute of God.You said you needed another name for God. What name would you use? Would you use multiple names? Would these names reflect the revealed nature and character of God found in the Old and New Testaments?Lastly, God is not a cosmic cop waiting around to give us a ticket when we mess up. I recently read a book called “The Deity Formally Known as God” by Jarrett Stevens. I would encourage you to read it. He does a really great job with describing who God is and who God is not. Thanks for the question/statement!
