In my last post, discussion turned to the question of whether or not we need God. One of my regular contributors, William, posted the following comment, and I felt it deserved its own post:
I am just having problems understanding whether humans “need” a god.
Do humans “need” a father? it may be beneficial if it’s a good father, but we can see many who get along fine who have not had a father, so “need” is the wrong term.
And what if that father is never around, left before you were born, and only left a letter to you explaining (not always in the easiest or most direct of terms) how he expects you to behave and promises that he’ll take care of you and promises to severely punish you for disobedience or for leaving him?
is that a good father? is that a father we need? isn’t it laughable that such a father could even begin to threaten the child for “leaving him” (since the father clearly left the child) not to mention how absurd it is to think that such a father actually does anything to really take care of the child?
I’m having a hard time understanding how we’re ingrained to “need” such a father, or why we’d even call such a father good?
Finding Truth 
I take back my comment about not posting anymore! I can’t resist.
William – I think you and I are on different planes of communication. Your last paragraph honestly baffles me. I really can’t see how you would hold to that kind of communication, especially if talking about supernatural things. Anyway, I think we’re just talking past each other at this point.
Nate – “I get the feeling that even if Josh doesn’t believe in the most literal form of Hell, he holds to the CS Lewis position that it’s a place of separation from God, which would supposedly be quite horrible”
Where I’m at right now in my understanding, I guess I’m not sure that I agree with the statement that it would be “quite horrible”. I think Jesus’ perceives that state as “quite horrible”, and I think I, looking into the possibility of eternity apart from the presence of God, see it is “quite horrible”. But, in my view, assuming what I believe is true, and assuming you retire away from God’s presence, may very well not perceive it as horrible. You, in fact, may perceive eternity with God as more horrible.
“it implies that the best form of parenthood is to hide from your child the moment they’re born”
I see God’s way as allowing your children to come to their own decision of whether they choose to live with you or not.
“Secondly, it’s problematic in that God still set up this form of punishment, when he didn’t have to do things that way. ”
God set up this form of “punishment” knowing that he would pay the “punishment” himself.
LikeLike
But he didn’t. I don’t want to be offensive, because I know crucifixion would be an overwhelmingly horrible way to die. But it’s not as though Jesus was the only person to ever be crucified. Furthermore, he went into it knowing exactly what awaited him on the other side. No other person has ever had that kind of comfort when facing death, because no one else could really know what the afterlife is like.
So to compare it with Hell, even if it’s a non-traditional version of Hell, is just not fair or accurate.
LikeLike
Nate-
The crucifixion was not the punishment he endured. I mean, it was punishment. But, the separation of himself from God “why have you forsaken me?” was the punishment he bore for us.
Reading Jesus’ prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, how could you conclude that his knowing his fate was comforting?
LikeLike
Josh, maybe we are speaking past each other. You baffle me as well. You were saying that god had a tangible presence… I think that’s incorrect. If he had a presence at all you could only say it was intangible. How is that hard to understand? If it were tangible, you’d be able to touch god, to see god. We cant – therefore it’s not tangible… what am I missing?
and this – “God set up this form of “punishment” knowing that he would pay the “punishment” himself.”
If the punishment from God was temporary death, then we’d all probably agree, but since the punishment for for the rest of us (after jesus supposedly already settled that debt for all) is quite different, then we don’t. Jesus was a great example of self control if the bible is right, but he also had a huge advantage if in no other way than he knew, beyond a doubt, what heaven looked like, what god looked like, and he knew exactly and specifically what god wanted. no doubts. No uncertainty. Painful death? absolutely, but he also knew what was on the other side first hand and knew he wouldn’t stay dead first hand. Advantage over us all.
LikeLike
and if we believe the bible,. Crucifixion wasnt the fate of Christ, it was one small bump in the road to his fate of returning to the “father” to rule beside him. In the garden, christ was anxious over that bump in the road, not what lie on the other side of it.
LikeLike
No one looks forward to a painful death. But to know what comes after is more comforting than not knowing.
I also don’t buy the “why have you forsaken me?” thing. First of all, I don’t really think he said anything like that. Secondly, it’s a quote of Psalm 22. If Jesus really had been the son of God, I don’t see why God would forsake him when he’s doing what God wants. I wrote about that long ago as a Christian, so I won’t go into it further here. You can search for it if you want.
But even if Jesus had been separated from God, it’s no different than what most people feel on a daily basis. Even if you think Christians have some kind of wireless connection to God, I doubt you think that everyone else does.
LikeLike
Not to assault you, but this goes back to the original post.
Josh – ““it implies that the best form of parenthood is to hide from your child the moment they’re born”
I see God’s way as allowing your children to come to their own decision of whether they choose to live with you or not.”
If any real father here on earth followed “God’s” fathering example, would they be considered a better father or a worse father?
Did you or any of your siblings wonder if your farther was real? Did you have conversations with your father, get actual hugs from your father, or did you speak into the air hoping your absent father heard you? Did you get comfort by thinking your non-present (intangible) father was caring about you?
LikeLike
“I also don’t buy the “why have you forsaken me?” thing. First of all, I don’t really think he said anything like that. Secondly, it’s a quote of Psalm 22.”
Jesus said a lot of things that were in the OT. Do we 86 everything on that list? He was the fulfillment of the OT.
“If Jesus really had been the son of God, I don’t see why God would forsake him when he’s doing what God wants.”
So, you’d buy that, even if he was the son of god, he was insulted, tortured, and crucified, but not that he would be forsaken?
LikeLike
According to mathew jesus even fulfilled a lot of OT prophecies that weren’t even there. Truly miraculous.
Go back and look up the “prophecies” in the OT that jesus supposedly fulfilled…
LikeLike
Yes. The former things were done to him by humanity — the latter would be done to him by God. So why would God act that way?
My point about it quoting Psalm 22 is that I think the gospel writers are simply having Jesus quote that opening line as a reference, not because God actually forsook him. If you remember, he dies right after saying it, which would imply that God has mercy and ends it for him. Just as you complained earlier of taking things to literally, I think this verse has been taken literally to a fault. At the very least, it’s complex enough that it shouldn’t be relied on as a major point; ie, that the separation was literal and a form of torture.
LikeLike
Josh: “Jesus said a lot of things that were in the OT. Do we 86 everything on that list? He was the fulfillment of the OT.”
You won’t find many Jews over the past 2000 years who agree with this.
Geza Vermes has written several books on the Birth, Resurrection and Crucifixion which uses OT scripture to refute these claims.
LikeLike
Nate, you and I are on the same page about Psalm 22. In those days, by quoting the first line of a Psalm, the entire Psalm would have been brought to the hearer’s mind. The Psalm in its entirety is quite victorious (“For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.” v. 24). God never forsook Jesus or turned away from Him, though the human side of Christ may have felt that way for a moment, thus the prayer and reminder of God’s faithfulness.
If God and Jesus were not in on the deal together then we have a picture of an angry god literally bull-whipping His only Son in our place – sounds a bit schizophrenic for the Trinity to me and an awful lot like every other pagan god being worshiped around the world. We also have Jesus saying to the Father, “Don’t hurt them, murder ME instead!” Utter nonsense. Like Jesus loves us but the Father is experiencing murderous hatred towards His creation. Not buying that paradigm anymore. Jus’ sayin’.
LikeLike
That’s cool that we’re on the same page with that, JudahFirst. I also found the original article I wrote on it, for anyone who’s interested: https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2007/01/11/my-god-my-god-why-hast-thou-forsaken-me/
LikeLike
Josh, I recommend you check out some of Baxter Kruger’s work. My favorite book by him is “Jesus and the Undoing of Adam”. I think there would be LOTS of stuff in there you would agree with. However, you’d have to bring into question the validity of the penal substitutionary view of the atonement. And I know from your Keller quotes, that’s going to be tough. 😉 (I sat under Tim in Hopewell, VA for about 3 years in High School and then again at Westminster Seminary – New LIfe Church – when my husband was there in ’88).
C.S. Lewis, however, was not much on penal substitutionary atonement but held a view closer to mine – that we were not ‘saved’ from God’s wrath, but from imprisonment to the principalities and powers of anti-Christ (the deep magic talked about in the Narnia series).
Anyway, something to think about that relates to this discussion, methinks.
LikeLike
Nice blog article, Nate! Yeah, it has always struck me that the idea that God couldn’t look on sin would eliminate Christ’s ability to walk on the earth for a second, much less 33 years! 🙂 But, then, I don’t think most Christians REALLY believe that Jesus was God in the flesh… yet another blog topic.
LikeLike
Read your article on Psalm 22, Nate. Really interesting.
JudahFirst – interesting points.
I believe once you start hacking away at what happened on the cross – that it wasn’t penal substitution, that God did not forsake Jesus, etc – you start traveling down a road that will eventually lead to the disregard for any meaning in Jesus’ substitution. The cross and what happened there – physically and spiritually – is the central focus of the entire NT. You start taking away that and everything crumbles down around it. I believe a lot of what I have been saying (which, is taken from the likes of Robert Farrar Capon, Internet Monk, Brennan Manning, Rod Rosenbladt, etc) infuses more love into what happened on the cross. Chipping away at that does not make God more loving. The less God cares about who we are and what we do and how we treat others, the less loving he becomes. When you start steering him toward a God who needed less and less to be accomplished on the cross, you make him less and less interested in what happens to us. It’s because he cares so much about who we are in his image that he demands payment for our shunning him. It is because he loves us enough to want to be with us that he pays that price himself in our place. The less serious our rebellion becomes, and the less God pays on the cross, the less I am inclined to believe he cares.
LikeLike
Josh, I hear what you are saying, I really do. But the only way you can come to those conclusions is to hold to a view of an angry god – whose wrath must be satisfied in some way. I hope you will read my 3 atonement articles (on my blog) about the difference between forgiveness and getting paid. If Jesus paid God then there is nothing for God to forgive, and He in fact, does NOT forgive. The picture of God which penal substitutionary atonement paints is not only completely absent from the N.T. as well as the writings of the early Fathers (try some Athenasius on for size), but I believe it is a character assassination which completely removes love from the equation.
When you begin to understand wrath in terms of passion for something better for the creation, then God’s love and wrath begin to gel. But as long as you see God’s wrath as an anger towards sinners that must be appeased, you are worshiping a pagan god – no different than all of the god’s enumerated in the O.T.
God’s wrath is directed at sin itself and our sin was dealt with when He allowed us to take it to its full conclusion in the murder of His Son – and yet forgiveness is the response. I don’t believe the N.T. is lying when he asserts that the death of Christ has reconciled the entire creation to the Father (Colossians 1 and many other verses). The key to the reconciliation is not that Jesus’ death changed God, but us. That is the whole crux of the argument regarding what happened on the cross: what changed? God? or me? According to Scripture God does not change. Has to be me. 🙂
LikeLike
Josh, I think you might be taking our comments further than we intend. I fully agree that the Bible says Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for sins. Hebrews goes through in great detail to say that he was the perfect sacrifice, because he was without blemish. And his sacrifice brings meaning to all the OT sacrifices that came before. It also teaches that he was the perfect high priest, because he was high priest of the order of Melchizedek, not Levi. Melchizedek was a high priest because of his great character, not because of his lineage. And the fact that Abraham paid homage to him made him “better” than Levi, Abraham’s great-grandson. Finally, Jesus could claim to be king, because he was a descendant of David.
So even if God did not literally forsake him, all those teachings would still remain intact. It still speaks of the absolute importance of Jesus and makes him the central figure of the Bible. I suggest thinking through all the implications a bit more before coming to a conclusion on it. It’s a complicated subject, and it’s true that mainstream Christianity views that passage as a literal forsaking by God. But how much sense does that really make? And honestly, how often do mainstream Christians really think that deeply about details like this?
In fact, I’d say that it displays more of God’s love if he was with Jesus every step of the way during the crucifixion. And I think JudahFirst makes an important point when she reminds us that Christian theology says Jesus and God, while separate, were also the same. So how could God forsake himself? Or spend so much time in a sinful world? Or listen to the prayers of those who are sinful (Cornelius, etc)?
LikeLike
“According to Scripture God does not change. Has to be me.”
Agreed. I don’t think any of what I wrote indicates God changed.
“But as long as you see God’s wrath as an anger towards sinners that must be appeased, you are worshiping a pagan god”
Not if he intended to pay the price all along “the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world”. And, I don’t believe his anger is toward us – I believe it is toward our sin, as you wrote as well. If his anger was toward us he would not have suffered to remove the stain of sin from us.
LikeLike
Nate, the only place I would disagree with your sacrifice imagery is in terms of who Jesus was sacrificed TO. In the O.T. system the sacrifice was being given to God. But in the N.T. Jesus is offered BY God as a sacrifice TO mankind (read some of the N.T. texts in Hebrews and other places a little closer and you will see this is true). We did not sacrifice Jesus to God as an appeasement of wrath – that is the penal substitutionary view (relatively “new” in terms of history). It gets really interesting when you begin to see this truth.
LikeLike
Josh, I hear you. 🙂
LikeLike
If God truly wanted to reconcile the World to Him, why did He choose a Jewish Profit exclusively to do so ? There might be 2 billion people at best who believe this but there are almost 5 billion people who do not and according to the Scriptures will be Lost. This doesn’t sound like a very good plan for an All Knowing Deity .
LikeLike
“It’s a complicated subject, and it’s true that mainstream Christianity views that passage as a literal forsaking by God. But how much sense does that really make?”
I think it makes a lot of sense. If Jesus was not separated from God, then he suffered nothing more than anyone else who was crucified. You said yourself the crucifixion is not, by itself, a remarkable death. People suffer that all the time. You’d think, if that was the suffering being referred to, then no on else would suffer the same or worse physical punishment. We know that is not the case.
“So how could God forsake himself? Or spend so much time in a sinful world? Or listen to the prayers of those who are sinful (Cornelius, etc)?”
I agree with the statement about God and Jesus, while separate, were also the same. In answer to your questions listed here. 1) I don’t know, but I believe it happened. 2) I don’t know that either, but he did. 3) I don’t know that either, but he does. This comes back to my point about not understanding a being that is clearly beyond us. These questions presume we should be able to understand how he operates. I don’t think that’s the case. And, to be fair, I’m not trying to claim that I can give a detailed description of what is implied by “why have you forsaken me?”, but the general principle of what I’m talking about makes sense.
LikeLike
So the more ridiculous the better?
This is where you and I keep parting ways. I’m not saying that we would have to understand every aspect of God or his nature. But if he is communicating something to us (the Bible), and he wants us to believe it (as countless scriptures attest), then it needs to be a bit more coherent than it is. At least, it needs to in order to gain wide appeal. There are always people who are willing to believe things, even if they make little to no sense, but these people often end up on the wrong side of things. And the Bible usually doesn’t speak very positively about them, since they’re “carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph 4). We should eventually reach a point where we’re capable of digesting “solid food,” not just “milk” (Heb 5). You can’t do that if the stuff doesn’t make any sense.
LikeLike
“There might be 2 billion people at best who believe this but there are almost 5 billion people who do not and according to the Scriptures will be Lost. ”
Like unkleE pointed out, there are countless stories that indicate God has worked to reveal the truth of Jesus in the lives of people who have not heard the direct story about Jesus.
LikeLike