That’s right. Jesus Christ did not come to this earth to die for you. That wasn’t the primary purpose he came. He didn’t come and die so that you could be wealthy and healthy. He didn’t lay down His life so you could go to heaven. He didn’t even do it solely because “He loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.”
Yet, I won’t disagree with you that some of the above are direct results and benefits that we can receive because He came and died. But we were not the primary reason that Jesus came to earth to spill His blood and give up His life.
The main, primary purpose for Jesus coming to earth is this: to bring glory to the Father. That’s why he came. Look at John 12:27-28:
27 “Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour.
28 Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, saying, “I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.”
The purpose he came is found in verse 28 – to glorify the Father’s name. If Jesus would have came to this hour for any other reason, wouldn’t He have been guilty of breaking the first commandment? Namely: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” How could He come for anything other than God’s glory? He couldn’t. It would be impossible, and He would be guilty of idolatry and treason. The primary goal and purpose of Jesus’ life was to do the will of the Father, so that He (God) may receive much glory!
However, as a result of His coming we become the beneficiaries of forgiveness, grace and mercy. If we accept the offer of His free gift, we become justified in the eyes of a just God who cannot allow unrighteousness to enter into His kingdom.
Let me put it this way in terms of Christ’s purpose:
- Primary Purpose – to bring glory to God
- Secondary Purpose/Benefit – the gift of salvation to mankind
You see, the secondary purpose fulfills the primary purpose, but cannot be the primary purpose. God must be first – always. It’s an irrefutable law. The universe was created by and revolves around the Father. He is the center. Not man.
Jesus died for God and God alone.
While I recognize your logic, does this not invalidate John 3:16? I mean, how many Christians would there be if it stated, “For God so loved Himself that he gave His only begotten Son that He may be glorified”? You have a point, but bickering over which is primary is a lot like debating whether Oprah is primarily a female or an African-American. She is both, and if she weren’t both, she would not be Oprah. God is love, not glory. How would such sacrifice bring glory to God if not through the atonement of sins, so that His fallen creation may again worship Him? Two sides of the coin, my friend.
Mike-
First off welcome!
Secondly, I do not believe that this logic at all invalidates John 3:16. You see God is most glorified when His creation – you and I are most satisfied in Him. It’s not selfish on His part, it’s just the way He works. He cannot place more importance on anything or anyone else above Himself – or He would be guilty of idolatry. He can’t do it. It is impossible.
Your statement:
is a sad reflection of American christianity. We think it’s all about us. That if things don’t go our way, then God’s not doing His job.
This kind of theology is going to give someone a big head. Why? Not because it’s not true, but because it’s not balanced.
Look at Abraham. God said – “I’m going to bless you and make your name great – so that in you all the nations of the earth might be blessed that I may be glorified!
Abraham didn’t complain and bicker that God was simply using him to bring glory to God Himself. Why? Because the secondary benefit was awesome! He didn’t care that it was secondary, because Abraham understood that it wasn’t about him, but that in the end it was all about God!
I think if you or any of us, would truly comprehend the message of “Jesus didn’t die for you,” it would be freeing.
The first time I heard this message preached – I had much of the same reaction that you did. I was angry. I had a lot of verses to combat this heretical theology – to prove that Jesus DiD die for me! How could anyone ever make such a claim!
But the more I thought about, prayed about it, studied the Bible about it, the more I came to realize – that the man was right. Jesus didn’t die for me – and that was a good thing! Why? Because that puts a lot of pressure on a man to perform – to live up to a sacrifice like that. But, if Christ died for the Father, to bring Him glory (not to glorify me), then I truly can comprehend God’s grace and mercy for me. Then I can truly know that my life is not about me being great, but it’s simply about me making HIS NAME great!
You see, it’s not about me Mike, and it’s not about you either. It’s about God and His glory. Making His name great throughout the whole earth. And I don’t even care that this is the primary goal on God’s heart, because the secondary benefits to me personally (and all of mankind) are so great – that no man could ever call them secondary!
Blessings!
Thanks, Heretic!
Blessings to you as well. I admire your search for truth and am merely another person walking the same path. It is an honor to walk alongside you, brother.
The basis of my reaction to this emphasis on the glory of God is that is borders on trying to define God in relation to the role of humans. Obviously, the cross both glorified God AND saved us all from our deserved and horrible fate. We can both agree on this point.
I’m not sure I personally see the need for such arguments as to what is “primary”, as the crucifixion had to do both. As it was God’s will that our relation to him be restored, Christ could not have died “for God” if he was not willing to do this “for the least of” us (Matthew 25). Such arguments, while theologically interesting, are like arguing which wing of the airplane is more important.
This I will say: if it was not the will of God to do so, Christ would not have independently died for us. However, the fact that God IS love, and love is not self-serving (1 John and 1 Corinthians 13, respectively), indicate to me that God’s purpose, if it is even applicable (how arrogant it would be for man to even fathom), may not be identical to His creation’s purpose, which is of course, to glorify God. If God was not love, He would not be God, or at least, not the God we know as Christians.
So, I agree with you that the sacrifice of the cross did glorify God. Christ also died for us, for the remission of sins. I am not sure that I agree entirely that God would be guilty of idolatry if He did not consider His glory above all other things, as love not only allows this but practically requires this. Thus on the surface anyway, we have a potential issue. Either God is guilty of “idolatry” for placing anything above Himself, or he is not love, for love is not self-serving.
The problem, in my opinion, is only because we as humans have such a limited understanding of God and of love. I would not begin to make a statement that it would be impossible for God to do anything. We may or may not understand, but God is beyond our logic as to what He must prioritize and why.
God loves us all more than any of us can fathom, and wants the best or us. It just so happens, of course, that “the best for us” is Himself. So, this again points to both “for God” and “for us” (His creation) as reasons for the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ being inseparable. In another phrasing, God does desire to be glorified, but He would rather we do it than the rocks. If we could not be reconciled to Him, how could we glorify Him? I hope you can at least understand my confusion with this stand.
Thanks for your insightful reply. Sorry I haven’t had time to respond until now. I think I’ll see what other posts you have out there for discussion….I enjoy digging below the surface. God bless you (and doing so would not be idolatry)!
Due either to carelessness, or the primitive knowledge of religious history – Religious Tolerance – It is a Great Monk : http://www.gurbani.org/articles/webart161.htm – every tree is unique.Jesus’ and Krishna’s mothers had similar names: Miriam (Mary) and Maia In reality, Krishna’s mother may have been referred to as Maia, but only because this is the Hindi word for “mother.” His mother’s actual name was Devaki; his foster mother’s name was Yashoda.Author Kersey Graves (1813-1883), a Quaker from Indiana, compared Yeshua’s and Krishna’s life. He found what he believed were 346 elements in common within Christiana and Hindu writings. That appears to be overwhelming evidence that incidents in Jesus’ life were copied from Krishna’s. However, many of Graves’ points of similarity are a real stretch. – YES,the Great Goddess said to me 2 years ago : ” I am the mother of Krishna ” .
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm
Welcome Dee!
First of all let me state that I don’t think you read my post, and that I totally disagree with everything you’ve alluded to in your comments.
Jesus is the only way, the truth and the life! I pray you’ll find the answer you’ve been searching for.
Get grip of a difficult reality.. there isn’t, and never was a “God.” Learn about evolution… accept man created “God” for control purposes. We are now older and wiser. As soon as you let go of your “God” perspective you see the world, humanity in a whole new light. Go read Richard Dawkins.