Why did Jesus Christ have to die by crucifixion? Like most simple questions, it has a complicated answer. Since this is a very complicated question, let us be clear about what questions I will not be answering, and that includes the question of why he had to die in the first place. That is a supremely important question, but it is one that takes far longer in time and space than I have the means and the inclination to do so right now. Even with the narrow focus the answer is still a reasonably long one.
For those who are believers in Jesus Christ, the obvious answer to the question of why Jesus Christ died by crucifixion is because the Bible says so. But that only deepens the question. Why and how does the Bible prophecy that Jesus Christ would be crucified? The Bible gives at least two answers to this question, and both of them lead us into deeper pondering of the original question. Let us examine both of these parallel threads, and then follow one of them further on, as the other quickly leads into much more complicated ground.
Galatians 3:13 reads: “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.”).” This brings up more questions than it answers. Paul suggests that the law itself prophesied that those who are put to death on wood or hung on trees are themselves cursed for a reason that has to do with Jesus Christ Himself. What is the curse of the law? It is death to those who disobey it, since the soul who sins shall die. In order for sinners like us to have eternal life, because God is just, that someone without sin had to die on our behalf so that we could live. Obviously this quickly gets into ground far beyond our context, and so we will have to leave it for another time, perhaps, though it is worthy to ponder about.
Let us return to the aspect of those being cursed by hanging on a tree. The quotation in Galatians 3:13 comes from Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which reads: “If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God.” When viewing this law in the context of penology, much less the context of Jesus Christ itself, it is an extremely ironic matter. For one, it was the habit of the Romans (as well as the English and the Persians) to hang body parts or bodies up as a deterrence to future criminals. Ironically enough, the Roman legions lost by Varus in the Tannenburg Forest were crucified on trees by the victorious Germans. They seemed to understand that hanging someone on a tree (whether they were alive at the time or were killed first) was a sign that they were accursed. However, they often forgot the fact that leaving bodies up defiled and accursed the land itself. It is, of course, additionally ironic that this law should apply to one who did not commit any sin worthy of death, but who became sin for all of us so that we might escape the curse that we deserved.
There is another line of evidence that suggests that the death by crucifixion had been planned in advance. Psalm 22 is a prophetic song of David that itself foretells the suffering Jesus Christ would face on the cross in at least two ways. Psalm 22:16-18 reads: “For dogs have surrounded Me; the congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all my bones. They look and stare at Me, they divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” This is a direct reference to what happened on the cross as Jesus was nailed and as his clothing was divided up and given by lot. Psalm 22:14-15 says: “I am poured out like water, and all My bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; it has melted within Me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and My tongue cleaves to My jaws; You have brought Me to the dust of death.”
Both of these quotations are demonstrative of the suffering inflicted by crucifixion, the wounds as well as the results. The unnatural position of the body led to asphyxiation as well as dislocation of bones, and Jesus’ experience in crucifixion also involved horrible dehydration as well (see, for example, John 19:28). We can view Psalm 22 then as making it fairly clear that what was meant was a type of death for the Messiah that was different than the normal death of human beings, much less those being condemned under biblical law, which did not crucify people at all.
That only brings us deeper into our original question of why Jesus Christ was crucified. Certainly the Bible indicates (in both Psalm and Deuteronomy) that this was to be done on a tree by some kind of hanging, but why was this so? Why was the prophecy not something different? Jews, after all, tended to stone people to death, and that was the customary punishment for crimes under biblical law. It was Gentile nations like the Persians or Phoenicians or Romans that crucified people in antiquity. And that is significant, adding yet another layer to our original question of why Jesus Christ died by crucifixion. Why would the Bible prophecy a Gentile death for a Jewish Messiah?
Most of the blame that has been assessed historically for the death of Jesus Christ has fallen on the heads of the Jews. The prooftext for this “Christian” anti-Semitism has been Matthew 28:25, which reads: “And all the people answered and said, “His blood be us and on our children.”” Clearly this did not mean all of the Jews as an entire people, since the vast majority of the early Church of God was in fact Jewish (a fact that seems heavily ignored) and the fact that even decades after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that the early church preached predominantly in Jewish synagogues and the disputes over “Chrestus” that occasionally reached the pens of pagan Roman historians were considered internal Jewish affairs by the various Roman governors (see, for example, Acts 18:14-17).
We know from the Bible that Pontius Pilate attempted to wash his hands of the guilt of crucifixion (Matthew 27:24), but the Bible does not absolve him of guilt. John 19:10-11 reads: “Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have the power to crucify you, and power to release You?” Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given to you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” Indeed, Pilate, as a Gentile unschooled in biblical ways, had less sin than the Jews who knew for certain that Jesus Christ was the Messiah and rejected Him (and taught others to reject Him). But he still had sin, because He condemned a man he knew to be innocent for political reasons.
And that is a significant problem. Many people who look at the accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion assume that Jesus Christ must have really been a rebel to die the death of crucifixion. They assume that the Bible must have been leaving out his radically anti-establishment rebelliousness (which they often support themselves to our own corrupt political and economic systems) for Jesus Christ to have been put to death in such a fashion. They are, of course, mistaken in the sense that the Bible consistently commands a high view of respect for even corrupt authorities, a respect I often personally find very difficult to give even to merely fallible human beings who are not incorrigibly corrupt. But they are right in a way too that is extremely valid for our question.
There were six trials of Jesus Christ (one by Annas, one by Caiphas, one by a rump Sanhedrin, one by Herod Antipas and two by Pontius Pilate). Three of the trials were by the Jewish religious leadership seeking to charge Him of blasphemy against the temple or in considering Himself to be God, charges related to being a Messiah from a religious standpoint. The three Roman trials were dealing with the political charges of being a Messiah. We know that the kingdom of God that Jesus Christ came for the first time was not a political kingdom, but rather a spiritual one. However, we also know that Jesus Christ will return again to literally reign over a rebellious and hostile earth and to take it over by force, if necessary (and unless you are a post-millinnialist, you believe it to be necessary).
And this is the point. There is a hint of revolution in the seemingly apolitical approach of the Bible. Rather than a direct overthrow of corrupt governments and socioeconomic systems, it is a slower and more gradual but also more complete change by changing hearts and minds inside, and then working their way out to families and congregations and communities, and then ultimately leading to social change from within as a result of internal spiritual changes within believers. It was a threat of gradual revolution, but revolution nonetheless that is threatening to the satanic and Gentile model of the Roman empire and its successors.
There is also another way in which Christianity is a threat to civil authority, in a way that is relevant right now. Godly people always have a limit to their obedience to civil governments. Being obedient to God’s law means that there are lines a believer will not cross. A government that demands to be put in the place of God, to where it considers itself the supreme authority over a nation and its people, and to where it considers itself the source of bread and sustenance, is a government that cannot be obeyed in good conscience. When this happens, and it often happens in this world, then a genuine believer, no matter how personally gentle they may be, is going to be hostile to the Gentile and ungodly ways of that nation, and will be a threat to authority, and treated as such.
And so, it was vitally important that Jesus Christ die by crucifixion not only to pay the price for our sins, and not only to show that Second Temple Judaism was obsolete and corrupt, needing serious reformation, but also to convict the authoritarian civil governments of this world of rebellion to to their own sovereign God by seeking to make themselves the gods over mankind. Jesus Christ had to die a Gentile death so that not only Jews but also all nations and people, who continue to this day to persecute believers because of their obedience to a higher King and a higher law than their own, would be guilty of rebellion to their rightful sovereign. Had Jesus Christ died a merely Jewish death, it would not have convicted the Gentile nations of their own moral corruption, or provided a way for believers to examine which civil governments would be more friendly to God by their treatment of believers and which governments are actively hostile to the proclamation of God’s truth.
And let us not be deceived. Today there are many nations that formerly considered themselves to be nations under God that are making it illegal to preach the moral truths of God to point out the inevitability of judgment from God on those who willfully and flagrantly break God’s laws. Whether we are dealing with “conservative” nations that consider any defense of the rights of foreigners and disadvantaged groups as being seditious and divisive, or “liberal” nations that consider any defense of moral law to be a hate crime, we are dealing with actively satanic governments whose hostility to God’s ways will eventually lead them to persecute the people of God who remain loyal and obedient to all of God’s ways. And when they do, they will be guilty of the same rebellion to their sovereign God. Because the crucifixion of Jesus Christ required the cooperation of both church and state, that manner of death convicted both man’s religious and man’s civil authorities of rebellion against God, and meant both church and state are under God and under divine command to enforce God’s laws.
And with that, let us conclude. It was prophesied in both the law and the writings that Jesus Christ would die a death on a tree that involved some type of nailing and hanging. The death was for religious reasons but required the support of a corrupt and ungodly Gentile civil government. The specific nature of the death has relevant and political consequences as well as expanding the circle of blame for the death of Jesus Christ from the Jews to all mankind who has rebelled against God. In addition, the manner of death of Jesus Christ also relates to the nature of God’s authority in both civil and political realms, so that all human behavior is subject to God’s laws, which are to work their way from interior belief and practice to drastic but consensual changes among whole societies, if any should repent and seek God’s ways. May God’s kingdom come, and may His will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Edge Induced Cohesion 
Who and Where are the modern day philosopher kings?
LikeLike
That’s a good question, and I honestly don’t know. I don’t think the philosopher kings these days are a cohesive group. We’re too divided by worldview.
LikeLike
So you believe then there are modern day philosopher kings.
LikeLike
I’m familiar with enough tenured professors and their ways to know that the mindset of privilege springing from intellectual prowess is alive and well in our society.
LikeLike
How many of these do you believe seek only that which is true and strive but struggle to become it ?
LikeLike
I know a few people like that, but not many. Most of us have parts of the truth that we don’t want anything to do with.
LikeLike
A man is ignorant, foolish and blind who thinks to escape the truth only requiers one to ignore it. A reprobate mind is a mind that holds no regard to even an absurd notion as the divine element.
LikeLike
Most of us are that way. Some truths are too powerful to ignore and so they have to be dealt with. But we’d all prefer to avoid unpleasant matters if we could get away with it.
LikeLike
Then that would be rejecting one part of the truth and isn’t that the same as rejecting the whole of the matter?
LikeLike
Well, if we can get away with it, yes, it’s rejecting the truth. If we’re forced to deal with what we find unpleasant, not necessarily. Perhaps that is one purpose of trauma, to break through our defenses and force us to deal with unpleasant truths. The truth sets us free from a lot of things we’d rather have.
LikeLike
Where would maturity fit into this?
LikeLike
I would think one definition of maturity would be an openness to truth and an ability to handle truths with a minimum of suffering.
LikeLike
Is that to “cause” suffering or to “alleviate” it?
LikeLike
Probably both. To be mature one would have to be able to handle one’s defenses well, to avoid being overwhelmed, but it would require both dealing with and knowing how to alleviate suffering wisely. It’s not an easy task–and it requires dealing with the world honestly.
LikeLike
Collectively it would need a law or rule from which to find equilibrium to balance a decision then?
LikeLike
I don’t think maturity is a state so much as it is a way of dealing with the world.
LikeLike
Can this ability be achieved early in development?
LikeLike
It’s possible, but I’ve never known it to be developed young without a great deal of suffering.
LikeLike
What about if it is recognized and not realized?
LikeLike
What do you mean? I’m rather tired and it’s a bit hard to parse what you’re trying to say.
LikeLike
gnite 🙂
LikeLike
G’night; I’ll reply in the morning next.
LikeLike
Can a philosopher king be conditioned and fashioned, or are they born with inherent properties enabling them to see clearly all sides to a matter?
LikeLike
I don’t think such matters are either nature or nurture, but a combination of both. You have to have a certain inclination to engage in speculative philosophy or to intuitively understand the world in a balanced and rational fashion. I would say it’s a rare inclination to start with, for sensible reasons, in that a society cannot generally support philosopher kings until it can handle basic survival needs, and cannot support too many philosopher kings because their activities are not particularly economically useful in the short-term. That said, such abilities must be nurtured and developed so that they can be used properly and not corrupted. I would suspect that most would-be philosopher kings allowed themselves to be distracted by one thing or another that deterred them from reaching the heights of excellence that they could have attained.
LikeLike
Would you say that in scripture God is encouraging all people to become philosopher king types?
LikeLike
Yes, I would. In fact, I would consider that a key element of the Sabbath, in giving rest for all people (and animals!) in part for the purpose of meditation on God’s word and the development of intellectual capabilities for all people.
LikeLike
I agree too in that humanity cannot funtion optimally while operating on a 24/7 shedual. What is missing in this 24/7 society is a day of universal peace and what i mean by this is that when I was a child and everything was shut down on Sunday, there was a certain sense of calm and rest that could be felt as it permiated the air in a sort of ambiance conducive to rest and well-being.
LikeLike
There are plenty of people who are enemies of the Sabbath rest because they desire to profit economically from the labor of others and do not wish for all people to be free from the burden of labor on a weekly basis, which means they cannot make money off of such labor. The fact that such Sabbath rest is commanded for servants and children and animals as well as for men and women suggests that God’s design for that rest trumps the economic concerns of elites.
LikeLike
If in scripture God encourages all people to become philosopher king types then this would be nurture?
LikeLike
There would still be an aspect of nature, because God does not intend for us to be all-sufficient ourselves, but requires us to maintain relationships with others. There are some aspects of truth that we are each better able to understand. Some of us may be expert heresy-fighters, some of us may be extremely logical and able to draw proper conclusions from scriptures, while others may be good at applying God’s laws to present circumstances, while still others may be able to see how other people work together to fulfill the work that God has set aside for us. Again, there is a connection between nature and nurture, a way in which our own God-given talents and abilities have to be cultivated to serve for His glory and fulfill His purposes within the context of our relationships and our activities.
LikeLike
So then we may conclude that some are born with the capacity to think from both the heart and the head so to speak and with proper care and consideration can develop into a morally inclined person.
Now this draws another question and it is; What if all of humanity are born with this ability but some if not most are not properly nurtured and lose this inherent ability to decide and act with moral intent, and in the event that a person later in life hears the right combination of words to re-ignite a certain train of thought, or to awaken a dormant (ignorance) or damaged (abuse) neuropathway, can such a person then learn to become a person of moral intent and action?
LikeLike
If you have this inherent ability, I don’t think it would be completely lost. It might be undiscovered for most people, but I don’t think it is completely lost unless we really screw ourselves up. That is possible, but clearly not desirable. But our native inborn talents always require nurturing and development to reach their full potential.
LikeLike
To reach full potential does not mean that once lost, damaged or corrupted that it cannot be recovered is what I am meaning to get to. Think of it like a memory chip that has been corroded and when cleaned up it reveals the data. In a human, the point of no recovery would be represented by a “reprobate mind”. Which according to scripture is the last frontier or place of corruption from which there is no return.
LikeLike
Right, that’s what I mean. Unless we have gone over to a reprobate mind there is the possibility of recovery. I would like to think that going to that level would be fairly rare, as it would require presumptuous and high-handed rebellion. That said, I’m glad it’s not my place to judge.
LikeLike
Satan (Hebrew: הַשָּׂטָן ha-Satan), “the opposer”,[1] is the title of various entities, both human and divine, who challenge the faith of humans in the Hebrew Bible.[2] In Christianity the title became a personal name, and “Satan” changed from an accuser appointed by God to test men’s faith to the chief of the rebellious fallen angels (“the devil” in Christianity, “Shaitan” in Arabic, the term used by Arab Christians and Muslims).[3] In Islam, a shayṭān is any evil creature, whether human, animal or spirit.
Matthew 16:22&23………22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” 23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
Here we see that Jesus called Peter “Satan’ because Peter was opposing something good and right in the eyes of God.
In analogy we can say that “any” person who is in opposition to “any” thing that can be said to be good for the WHOLE of humanity, is a “Satan” or an opposer of the good for humankind.
Two questions;
Who and where are these types?
Who and where are the philosopher king types?
LikeLike
Indeed, that is a rather complete analysis of the meaning and use of the word Satan.
I answered your first question in my post entitled “The Wind That Shakes The Barley,” looking at how if we are in rebellion against any aspect of God’s ways that we are in trouble. To give the short answer, we find the first type of people everywhere, even in the mirror sometimes.
As far as the second, it’s a much harder task. I would argue that those who are philosopher kings (by biblical standards) would be mature and responsible believers capable of rightfully dividing the word of truth. Such types of people would have zeal according to knowledge. So, we should expect to find much fewer of them than we find adversaries, and also to be people who have a well-earned reputation for knowledge but who are humble about it rather than arrogant. Such people would be able to recognize each other, at least.
LikeLike
I will have to lend you the answer to the second question and I would have to say that you can find them in your blog, “On The Sicience of The Mind”. Please humor me in this and keep it under the fog, I wouldn’t want to alarm anyone just yet. If you believe that you realize just who and where they are then please email me the answer and together we may find something “new” to announce in the near future.
LikeLike
That’s very amusing. I aspire to be such a philosopher king myself, but it’s not something that is easy to know for sure. We are easily self-deceived about such matters.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree that we can be easily deceived about such matters but I was not saying that you fancy yourself to-be a philosopher king type. I know this must-be-recognized by others, as it would be presumptuous to say or to think that about oneself. To say that of oneself would be-likened to believing one is of the 144000 chosen. This is a hope, but to desire to be a philosopher king would be something else.
With your reply here, I assume that you did not find them. Is this a correct assumption?
LikeLike
It depends on what one means. I have found a few people in my life with whom I could talk openly and easily about extremely deep matters, and who I would personally consider to be philosopher kings, but their willingness to go beyond normal superficial understanding was limited based on their own foci, and did not mean that they were equally knowledgeable or curious about all aspects of human knowledge, despite their being more generalist than specialist in their intellectual worldview.
LikeLike
As it can be expected that a real philosopher king would not admit to it, again this would be presumptous to do such a thing or to make such a claim. A philosopher would in my understanding be a “reluctant” ruler and would need to be pressed into the role.
LikeLike
I agree that a philosopher king would be a reluctant ruler, but such people as I have seen that would fit such a role had an easy time sharing conversation with others of like intellectual inclinations, with pleasure, and without a great deal of bossiness. They were certainly modest, but at the same time openly intellectual.
LikeLike
So how do we find them and how do we get them to take the lead?
LikeLike
I honestly don’t know how to get them to take the lead. As far as how to find them, one simply has to be open to meeting them, as it is a fairly rare occurrence.
LikeLike
Pingback: Sudden Death | Edge Induced Cohesion
I Think Jesus Died On The Cross To Take Away The Sins Of The World And Save Us From Our Sins And His Death On The Cross Is The Ultimate Price Of Our Sin And He Took It Upon Himse
lf To Take Our Place And Punishment On The Cross To Defeat Sin And Death And He Finished
The Task That God Gave Him And Given Up His Life To Save Us! Amen!
PS Jesus Is Our Sacrificial Lamb To Die For Us By Reconciling Man Back To God!!!
LikeLike
All of that is true, and fundamental, but as is often the case I wanted to examine a literal question that is often not understood literally because people want to jump to other questions.
LikeLike
I Believe That Jesus Have To Die Dealing With The Sin Of The World And To Save His People From Their Sins And Fulfilling God’s Love For Mankind!
LikeLike
Yes, that’s a large part of the answer.
LikeLike
The Prophecy Of Zechariah And The Prophecy Of Micah Predicted And Prophesied That Jesus Will Die Fulfilling God’s Plan And The Fulfilled Scriptures By The Prophet Zechariah And The P
rophet Micah Witnessed The Death Of Jesus Christ!
LikeLike
Yes, that’s also true, but how clearly the people who gave the prophecies understood their meaning is up for question.
LikeLike