have to die

Zed: "May I ask why you felt little Tiffany deserved to die."
James: "Well, she's the only one that seemed dangerous at the time, sir."
Zed: "How'd you come to that conclusion?"
James: "...I saw little Tiffany. I'm thinking, you know, eight-year-old white girl, middle of the ghetto, bunch of monsters, this time of night with quantum physics books. She's about to start some [stuff], Zed."

In the case that someone reading this has actually not seen Men in Black, this scene is available on YouTube at the following location (mild language warning). In the scene, Will Smith's character (James Edwards) has just shot a cardboard cutout of a little girl at a firing range after passing over more dangerous looking alien cutouts. At first blush the shot looks like a mistake, but the movie goes on to illustrate that appearances can be deceiving.

One question that I always pose in my mind at this time of year is why did Jesus have to die in the way He did. When this question arises, I typically recall the scene in Men in Black about little Tiffany having to die. In both situations, it is very understandable to ask why death is necessary. Also, in both situations, the answer to why is difficult to accept regardless as to how valid it might in reality be.

Few people who have seen The Passion of the Christ would pretend to believe that thirty-nine lashes and crucifixion is an easy way to die. I remember that one of the biggest impressions the movie had on me was that the whole process seemed arbitrary. Was there a reason that Christ had to die in this way rather than in a more humane fashion? Did the cross impart something that the guillotine couldn't?

These questions bothered me for a while. I do not like my foundational beliefs to seem arbitrary, and this seemed very much so. It didn't threaten my faith, but it was certainly an obvious irritant to my faith for a few days.

After I gave it some thought, I determined that the purpose of Jesus' death having to come through crucifixion could not be known without understanding why death was necessary in the first place. The keys to me are that sin demands a sacrifice (Romans 3:21-26) and that Christ's sacrifice is the ultimate expression of love (Romans 5:6-8).

To address my concerns I now believe that there is much more to the Crucifixion than is humanly understandable. I will never fully comprehend why sin has to be atoned because my understanding is physical rather than spiritual. If a sacrifice is demanded for the spiritual shortcomings of humanity, one physical sacrifice (significant as it is) does not seem enough. Using a physical sacrifice to pay a spiritual debt simply feels inadequate. Using a spiritual sacrifice to pay a spiritual debt makes a lot more sense. Even so, that spiritual sacrifice would have to be far more horrific than any physical sacrifice could ever be.

I personally believe that the reason that Christ had to physically die on the cross was that most any other death would not relay to us the enormity of His spiritual sacrifice. If his death was quick and painless, we would not understand how beyond valuable the gift of salvation is. We may not even believe that the sacrifice that was made was and is enough to cover all sin. We certainly would not understand the volume of love behind that sacrifice.

I do not expect that everyone is going to agree with me about this. Some might note that Isaiah seems to imply that it is Christ's physical torment that provides us salvation (Isaiah 53:4-5), though this is obviously not how I interpret Isaiah. Whether we agree on this is not important, though. How Christ covers sin is less vital than the fact that He does cover sin.


Update (12/16/14):

You will note that I have struck through a few specific sentences in the text above.  I left them in place, but marked out, because I wanted to properly illustrate my modified stance on what is ultimately a very important issue.

When Christ was on this earth he was 100% man, but he was and still is still 100% God, and as a result 100% spiritual.  In the sense of his nature being spiritual, Christ's sacrifice was indeed spiritual.  In the sense that Jesus descended into the grave before his resurrection, the process was spiritual.  However, I regretfully discounted too much the value of the physical sacrifice.  I now take Isaiah more literally to understand that we are actually healed by Christ's wounds.

I will say that the whole idea of sacrifice as an atonement for sins is still a confusing concept for me.  I do not understand the requirement for blood in the same way that people of that era would have understood it.  I do not understand the requirement of a violent death as payment for sin.  I get the drive for justice, but I do not fully understand the means (even though it is explained in Hebrews 9:16-24).  The idea of a covenant is foreign to my mind, so the idea of violent enforcement of a covenant is also foreign.

I apologize to anyone whom I confused or misled by what I wrote in error.