The Father did not "choose" His Son to die

[Lily_Bernans]

I completely agree. Of course, this could have not been accomplished without the Father. The Father created His Son, Jesus, fully knowing that He was being created to live and spread the Word to others, as well as die for all of our sins.

Luke 24:42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

As the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus was begotten, not created. However, most theologians believe his humanity was created since humans are created.

Just want to be clear on that.

 

[friardchips]

As the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus was begotten, not created. However, most theologians believe his humanity was created since humans are created.

Just want to be clear on that.

He “was begotten not made”. But He was given flesh. This doesn’t mean that He was created though. The reason theologians think this, is because of the laziness of usage, of words in modern language. Many people say:" I created this, or that", but in actual fact, they haven’t ‘created’ anything. They have sub-created. They have ‘made’ things. Although ‘made’ in the Creed sense means the same as created (I think?): “He was begotten not made”, meaning “He was begotten not created”.

 

[friardchips]

+JMJ+

“For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. *No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.” John 10:17-18

Coming back to this, as this was a really apt Scripture passage, I think this also points particularly to the fact that He is Divine, for yet another reason: He had the POWER to not be put to death. Being Divine, with one thought He had the ‘power’ to change the context of everything, just as He walked on water, but He didn’t and gave Himself up to their bloodymindedness: what had to happen; the path. He fulfilled Scripture PERFECTLY - remember this. He completely submitted to His path. But the other point is that He is making the distinction between the angry will of the persecutors and the Divine Will of the Father. There is a lot to this passage, to be honest. The choice was not to die but to consent to the Father’s Will that was perfectly spoken for the movements of a good yet fallen Creation.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

He “was begotten not made”. But He was given flesh. This doesn’t mean that He was created though. The reason theologians think this, is because of the laziness of usage, of words in modern language. Many people say:" I created this, or that", but in actual fact, they haven’t ‘created’ anything. They have sub-created. They have ‘made’ things. Although ‘made’ in the Creed sense means the same as created (I think?): “He was begotten not made”, meaning “He was begotten not created”.

I didn’t say he was “created” or a “creature.” He was neither, but his HUMANITY was created. He was fully human. That was created. As a human being he was created, as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity he was begotten.

No, theologians don’t say that because they are lazy!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Christ wasn’t a “sacrifice” in the sense that he was laid on an altar and drained of blood. He wasn’t a substitute for us. Christ died for our sins, sure, but he died for our sins to show us the WAY to overcome sin. We overcome evil, not with even greater evil, but with love. Human beings get caught in a cycle of sin that spirals downward. The only way to break that cycle is with love. That’s what Christ did on the Cross, he broke the cycle of sin. Every human being has the seeds of self-transcendence planted in his or her heart, however unless he or she heeds them, he or she will never develop an authentic relationship with Christ.

When read in full, the Law of the Cross is a VERY DIFFICULT concept, or I should say, theory of redemption, so people just say, “Christ died for our sins,” which is true, but very incomplete. God could have forgiven us with a wave of his hand, analogically, of course, since he doesn’t have a hand.

If you want to know more about this consult your priest or Google Lonergan Law of the Cross or read here:

books.google.com/books?id=KckEeunaMroC&pg=PA417&lpg=PA417&dq=lonergan+bias+and+the+law+of+the+cross&source=bl&ots=tAT62ijw-m&sig=jTJKm73ow5jeXM7DVe1OgwX31cU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAmoVChMI45Gh2q6AyQIVBekmCh3EjwgM#v=onepage&q=lonergan%20bias%20and%20the%20law%20of%20the%20cross&f=false

Bernard Lonergan was a Jesuit priest.

 

[friardchips]

I didn’t say he was “created” or a “creature.” He was neither, but his HUMANITY was created. He was fully human. That was created. As a human being he was created, as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity he was begotten.

No, theologians don’t say that because they are lazy!

Maybe just overworked?!

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Maybe just overworked?!

LOL No.

 

[friardchips]

Christ wasn’t a “sacrifice” in the sense that he was laid on an altar and drained of blood.

Abraham being tested to sacrifice his son.

He wasn’t a substitute for us. Christ died for our sins, sure, but he died for our sins to show us the WAY to overcome sin. We overcome evil, not with even greater evil, but with love.

This is nice but He IS Love. Love Incarnate.

Human beings get caught in a cycle of sin that spirals downward. The only way to break that cycle is with love.

He IS Love and so sin was broken in Him. Love breaks the cycle - yes; He broke the cycle - yes, or rather, redeemed us and justified our suffering.

Be careful of the word cycle. This is very non-Catholic eastern religion sounding. There is a “cycle” to it all but not sure how completely it fits to the overall story of our redemption.

That’s what Christ did on the Cross, he broke the cycle of sin. Every human being has the seeds of self-transcendence planted in his or her heart, however unless he or she heeds them, he or she will never develop an authentic relationship with Christ.

Very nice paragraph. We participate in His salvific work.

When read in full, the Law of the Cross is a VERY DIFFICULT concept, or I should say, theory of redemption, so people just say, “Christ died for our sins,” which is true, but very incomplete. God could have forgiven us with a wave of his hand, analogically, of course, since he doesn’t have a hand.

If you want to know more about this consult your priest or Google Lonergan Law of the Cross or read here:

books.google.com/books?id=KckEeunaMroC&pg=PA417&lpg=PA417&dq=lonergan+bias+and+the+law+of+the+cross&source=bl&ots=tAT62ijw-m&sig=jTJKm73ow5jeXM7DVe1OgwX31cU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAmoVChMI45Gh2q6AyQIVBekmCh3EjwgM#v=onepage&q=lonergan%20bias%20and%20the%20law%20of%20the%20cross&f=false

Bernard Lonergan was a Jesuit priest.

He did actually literally die for our sins. But I’m not getting into this. But I can assure you that He did. And also for the reasons you stated. But the Jesuit I would think is being a bit ‘progressive’ with that statement.

Really appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut in this thread so far and for the link suggestion!

 

[fred_conty]

Jesus was born into this world and became man. As such he has a human will.
And when He says, “I have come into the world not to do my will, but the will of the one who sent me”, he said this speaking of his human will.

When he was in the garden of Olives the night before he died, Jesus asked that if it be possible, that this chalice pass from him, but not his will be done but his Father’s. Again as a man, with his human will, he said this to his heavenly Father.

However there were other times when Jesus spoke not as man but as divine, when he said that his Father and He were one. Or when he said that when we see him we also see the Father.

So it is important to know whether he is speaking of himself as human or divine.

So yes we can say that the Father comissioned his Son to become man in order to become the second Adam, and die for the sins of mankind. He died when his human soul separated from his human body.

It was the will of his Father. The reason why it was the will of his Father is for another thread.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

This is the part I would question or ponder.
The fact that he did die-- and that he died that way–doesn’t seem so “perfect” to me.
How could it be perfect when two thousand years later, so many in this world don’t even know the Christian narrative of Jesus, never mind believe it or follow it?
And the idea that a man has to be tortured and killed for “the Father to be loved by His children”…well…surely an all-powerful God could have thought up a better way to try to be loved.

And Augustine of Hippo’s imagining that Jesus agreed to it in the way he describes is a really nice “reasoning” and it makes the torture aspect less harsh…but it doesn’t jive with Jesus’ words on the cross about being forsaken…

It’s the obedience to the Father’s will that’s perfect.

Jesus’ words on the Cross are the beginning of Psalm 22, which ends on a note of hope. Presumably, since Jesus was an orthodox Jew, he was intimately familiar with the psalm.

I don’t agree or disagree with you. I don’t agree completely with the other poster. God could have forgiven humanity with a wave of his hand or a nod of his head (I know he doesn’t have a hand or head, I know he’s a pure spirit). I think the crucifixion was most fitting for us, but I’m not going to get into why. Too much argument and ill will on this thread, and I’m not speaking of you. I just want to make that clear, so please don’t take offense. None is meant.

 

[friardchips]

Thank you very much for your (name removed by moderator)ut here. I enjoyed reading your post. It is a difficult thing to describe a Mystery so not getting into this further. You reminding us that He is One, is important though and a valid inclusion to the thread. I do want to assert here that He is most definitely three Persons, in One Creator.

Wishing you well.

 

[friardchips]

As the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus was begotten, not created. However, most theologians believe his humanity was created since humans are created.

Just want to be clear on that.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

465 The first heresies denied not so much Christ’s divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism). From apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of God’s Son “come in the flesh”.87 But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is “begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father”, and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God “came to be from things that were not” and that he was “from another substance” than that of the Father.88

Take care.

 

[friardchips]

It’s the obedience to the Father’s will that’s perfect

Correct.

 

[friardchips]

Jesus was born into this world and became man. As such he has a human will.
**And when He says, “I have come into the world not to do my will, but the will of the one who sent me”, he said this speaking of his human will. **

When he was in the garden of Olives the night before he died, Jesus asked that if it be possible, that this chalice pass from him, but not his will be done but his Father’s. Again as a man, with his human will, he said this to his heavenly Father.

However there were other times when Jesus spoke not as man but as divine, when he said that his Father and He were one. Or when he said that when we see him we also see the Father.

So it is important to know whether he is speaking of himself as human or divine.

**So yes we can say that the Father comissioned his Son to become man in order to become the second Adam, and die for the sins of mankind. He died when his human soul separated from his human body. **

It was the will of his Father. The reason why it was the will of his Father is for another thread.

Thank you for this post. I agree that the distinction between human and Divine is important when interpreting the Gospels.

I have bolded areas of the lovely and informative post in order to draw out a point from it: a “commission”, as you put it, "in order to…“do…the Will of the One who sent me”.

I would reason this as a ‘resting’ in His Father’s Will. An aligning of his humanity and Divinity - a recollection. In this way, we could say He “chose” to do this. But I still think the word “chose” is a very weak word. The truth seems more to be that He prayed, and grace aligned His very mission in response to His Agony, His reason for being here, with the Father’s Will. He submitted/rested His future into the hands of His Father. To “choose” while consisting of the human aspect seems to forget the Divine, and I think furthermore, to say: “chose to die” or the Father "chose His Son’s death, in whatever way, seems to be akin to human reasoning. The Will of our Creator is perfect. He does not need to “choose” because He IS. We could say that our Lord “chose” to pray. But the words “order” and “commission” and “do the Will” does not seem like choice.

But we’re going off the point. I was saying that the Father did not choose His Son to die. And so the reasoning behind why the Father sent the Son, or the Son chose to be born on earth, is still relevant. The Divinity of the Father means that the choice is not a choice in the the way we understand this word as mere humans, this ‘choice’ was rather a perfect means, to which the Second Person must have agreed to before He was born, as the Holy Trinity is in agreement and perfect relationship; therefore, when our Lord was begotten, this mission was already in Him, and prophesied within time. Maybe we can use the word “chose” or “choose”, but only very loosely, IMO.

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

[friardchips]

I believe he actively chose to die and an act of His will

An “act of His Will”. I really like this assertion. He being also Divine, means He has already been spoken - He is ‘The Word Made Flesh’.

Christ is omniscient, and as such knew the outcome of His decision to enter into humanity. As such, the decision to enter into humanity was as much an active decision as it was a consent to the outcome that faced him. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Agreed. But choice…not sure this word fits still. I think active is very true. But the action comes from His Willing something into being, rather than choosing. Choosing tends to present a choice between a good and a lesser good. One choice has to have more ‘goodness’ than another because there is an order to things. He is “omniscient” as you say and therefore does only what is the very best.

I didn’t say that first part, and I don’t think you did either… could you elaborate?

Christ’s will and teh father’s are one. He did not want to suffer. As a human, he understood the pain that awaited him, and did not wish to undergo it. Despite that, he made the decision to accept the father’s will, and so chose to sacrifice himself. Again, since their will are the same, this would imply that god the Father chose it as well.

Okay. I think there were various reasons for His Agony and the pain that awaited Him was not just physical. I think there were many reasons. He was literally taking on the world’s sins and dying for them. I agree if you use the word ‘choice’ loosely, but in strict terms, I can’t agree. I believe He chose to pray and this prayer aligned His Will to that of the Father, and the WIll of the Father had already been spoken, and so therefore, the choice had already been made. But I think the term ‘willed’, is different to ‘choice’.

The ones killing Him were the people, not God; but keep in mind that it was Christ’s will which allowed them to, not his Passive Will, but rather His Active Will, which wills all of our reality into being constantly.

He has Willed. He doesn’t continue to Will. He has spoken already. Nice paragraph still.

It was His Will, along with the Father’s and the Holy Spirits which allowed his killers to take breath, to raise their hammers, to drive the nails, to lift him up… As they killed him, Christ had to have been actively willing their very existence, otherwise they would not have existed to do as they did. I think this fact makes the reality of his choice very evident.

Ah, I see your reasoning now. So you are, in effect, saying that because His grace holds the world in existence, and these people did what they did within existence, this must mean that He willed them to commit evil?

But this understanding falls short because although Creation was made ‘good’ and people in His image, it is a fallen nature. Not evil but still fallen. Original Sin pulls on the psyche away from a sanctified state. The people who literally crucified Him to the tree were acting with evil intent. Our Creator knew all this, being outside of time, and the only way back with perfect means, was the means by which the Truth was Revealed. Don’t forget that Adam and Eve chose to sin, bringing sin and death into the world, before He came to earth. This is going off the subject and there are various threads to do with Original Sin on this forum already.

Thanks.

 

[friardchips]

I’m unclear on your question. Are you asking if there was another way or method he could have died?
Or are you asking if God could have forgiven everyone their sins without Jesus having to die at all?

Hi there! It is the problem of the word “chose” that I started this thread - as a response to the word “chosen” in another thread to which we are not given the freedom to counter.

Obviously, for the whole resurrection narrative to work, he had to die.

EXACTLY! You’ve just answered it (for me anyway). “He had to die.”

If you are saying you hesitate to think God chose the “method” of death…I wonder why you would be hesitant to think this or, as you say, embrace this wording of it.
Had Jesus died by a sword or by taking poison or by getting sick…Christianity would not have the image or symbol of him on a cross, as you note.

This is all very true. Although the tree is not just a symbol because there are deeper and more mystical roots to this revelation that stretch back through time and eternity.

My issue, is that our Creator doesn’t need to choose because He Wills. This is how I would explain now my issue with the word “chose” thanks to the participation of everyone in this thread to this point.

And other ways of dying may have even been more painful than the way he did die. So God “choosing” him to die that way could have been deliberate choice–yes, “choice”-- and for many reasons.

So do you believe that our Creator wills people to do evil? This would bring about the image of puppets. Not children, with freewill (IMO).

This is the part I would question or ponder.
The fact that he did die-- and that he died that way–doesn’t seem so “perfect” to me.
How could it be perfect when two thousand years later, so many in this world don’t even know the Christian narrative of Jesus, never mind believe it or follow it?

Lily has answered. I’d say that the failure of the Cross is something that the Pope has talked about and it is this very failure that trips many up. The difference between “seeing with the mind of the Church” and seeing with the eyes of the world. May I suggest reading some of the current Pope’s words to do with the Holy Cross. I think reading his words can bring great enlightenment to any misunderstanding.

And the idea that a man has to be tortured and killed for “the Father to be loved by His children”…well…surely an all-powerful God could have thought up a better way to try to be loved.

This is why there was no choice in the sense that humans understand choice to be. Revelation had to happen. You said this already yourself, when you asserted very insightfully: “He had to die”. But as the Creator, He loved us so much that he gave Himself to us. Is this ‘choice’ or the result of Divinely Willed self-giving love?

And Augustine of Hippo’s imagining that Jesus agreed to it in the way he describes is a really nice “reasoning” and it makes the torture aspect less harsh…but it doesn’t jive with Jesus’ words on the cross about being forsaken.

I think you have a lot of empathy for His ordeal? I’m not going to say any more on this other than I think to have empathy for such an ordeal is holy, and also personal between you and the Creator, and a feeling to take further in your journey.

Thanks so far!

 

[friardchips]

From “The Life of Christ” by Fulton J Sheen
…
A third fact separating Him from all the others is this: every other person who came into this life came to live. He came into it to die. Death was a stumbling block to Socrates—it interrupted his teaching. But to Christ, death was the goal and fulfillment of His life, the gold that he was seeking. Few of His words or actions are intelligible without reference to His Cross. He presented Himself as a Savior rather than merely a Teacher. It meant nothing to teach men to be good unless He also gave them the power to be good, after rescuing them from the frustration of guilt.

The story of every human life begins with life and ends with death. In the Person of Christ, however it was His death that was first and His life that was last. The scripture describes Him as “the lamb slain as it were, from the beginning of the world.” He was slain in intention from the first sin and rebellion against God. It was not so much that His birth cast a shadow on His life and thus led to his death; it was rather that the cross was first ,and cast its shadow back to His birth. His has been the only life in the world that was ever lived backward. As the flower in the crannied wall tells the poet of nature, and as the atom is the miniature of the solar system, so too, His birth tells the mystery of the gibbet. He went from the known to the known, from the reason of His coming manifested in the name “Jesus” or “Savior” , to the fulfillment of His coming, namely, His death on the cross.

Peace

Bingo! hazcompat, thank you a million! This just added some weight to another discussion to do with intent. I’m really grateful for this post. Especially the bit in bold.

 

[friardchips]

I, also, think ‘choose’ would be the wrong word to use. More precisely, it would be He ‘allowed’ it to happen. In the Douay-Rheims, 2 Thessalonians 2:10 says that God will “send them the operation of error, to believe lying” and notes the correct interpretation of this ([10] God shall send: That is God shall suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders, and false miracles, in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth.). God does not ‘make’ them believe lying, but allows them to believe lying.

I like Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s view that I posted here.

Pope Emeritus’ words are very moving. Your link is a must-read. I hope any involved in this thread will take a few minutes out to read this short piece of writing just for the sake of reading something beautiful.

 

[fred_conty]

Thank you for this post. I agree that the distinction between human and Divine is important when interpreting the Gospels.

I have bolded areas of the lovely and informative post in order to draw out a point from it: a “commission”, as you put it, "in order to…“do…the Will of the One who sent me”.

I would reason this as a ‘resting’ in His Father’s Will. An aligning of his humanity and Divinity - a recollection. In this way, we could say He “chose” to do this. But I still think the word “chose” is a very weak word. The truth seems more to be that He prayed, and grace aligned His very mission in response to His Agony, His reason for being here, with the Father’s Will. He submitted/rested His future into the hands of His Father. To “choose” while consisting of the human aspect seems to forget the Divine, and I think furthermore, to say: “chose to die” or the Father "chose His Son’s death, in whatever way, seems to be akin to human reasoning. The Will of our Creator is perfect. He does not need to “choose” because He IS. We could say that our Lord “chose” to pray. But the words “order” and “commission” and “do the Will” does not seem like choice.

But we’re going off the point. I was saying that the Father did not choose His Son to die. And so the reasoning behind why the Father sent the Son, or the Son chose to be born on earth, is still relevant. The Divinity of the Father means that the choice is not a choice in the the way we understand this word as mere humans, this ‘choice’ was rather a perfect means, to which the Second Person must have agreed to before He was born, as the Holy Trinity is in agreement and perfect relationship; therefore, when our Lord was begotten, this mission was already in Him, and prophesied within time. Maybe we can use the word “chose” or “choose”, but only very loosely, IMO.

Thank you for your thoughts.

The Father did not “choose” His Son to die. That is the statement of the thread.

Because God is simple, or one, uncomplicated, not many anything. How could we say the Father “chose” or made many individual choices? Because we can see everyone is praying for God to hear them and “chose” to do our will. And many times he does. Does that mean he has these frequent little choices to be made for every individual that prays to him?

Of course God can’t … it would be a contradiction to his simplicity. Then in what way does he carry out our requests if he doesn’t do it on an individual basis? Simple … he doesn’t do it on that basis but rather from eternity. And that is something no human can comprehend because they are not on an equal basis with God and therefore do not have the mental equipment to grasp it.

And so the Father did chose his Son to be the sacrifical lamb and die on the cross … but from all eternity. This is not being evasive, but is a fact based on what God is…simply one act. By one act he willed it all.
And saying this is more than anyone can understand.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

465 The first heresies denied not so much Christ’s divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism). From apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of God’s Son “come in the flesh”.87 But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. The first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is “begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father”, and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God “came to be from things that were not” and that he was “from another substance” than that of the Father.88

Take care.

I haven’t the vaguest idea what that has to do with me. I’ve known about the hypostatic union since I’ve been a little girl. I never denied Christ’s divinity or the fact that he is homoousios with the Father. However he also homoousios with us in all ways but sin.