I think I agree with your conclusion: “Therefore for a man to die to take away sins he had to be divine. He had to not be a son of Adam, but a son of God.” We disagree, though, on whether being “divine” and “a son of God” necessarily means that Jesus was God himself. It would seem to me that a whole range of possibilities exist in between being fully man and fully God. Might “son of God” mean some sort of lesser divine being, free from sin and fully connected to God’s will, yet still a creation rather than The Creator?

Of course, as I mentioned in the post, the Bible does indeed make claims for Jesus being fully God. I’m merely claiming that this would not seem to be inherently necessary. Perhaps I would see it differently if I were Christian myself – but then again, perhaps not.

Thanks for the insightful comment.

-For starters, the world was created perfect. After every day of creation God said the world was ‘good’ and after man was created he said it was ‘very good.’ The idea is of perfection and completion there.

-Man was given dominion over this world. So much so that later man’s actions of sin affected not only himself but the world as a whole. (Gen 1:26, Gen 3:17)

-Man had to have a choice. God was not only creating a companion who would have to be able to choose him or not, he was creating it in his own image thereby necessitating the ability to have free will or choice. (Gen 1:26 again)

-Man chose himself over God. Woman ate of the fruit because it seemed good in her eyes even though God told them not to eat of it. Man ate too, not because he was deceived but because he chose it. The Bible is not entirely clear on this but it seems the idea that Adam chose it for some reason, whether it was because Eve had done it and he did not want to lose Eve or something else. (Gen 3, Rom 5:12-14 1Tim 2:14)

-The Law and its covenant was introduced so man could have a proper relationship with God. It was put in place so man could know what was required of him to live rightly, and to put in place sacrifices that could atone for sin. In less theological terms, that means the sacrifices of the law are there to restore man’s standing before God when man puts himself before God, instead of God before himself. Other sacrifices are there for things beside sin, but those sacrifices are there for thankfulness for what God has given us or just sacrifices saying God should be put first. (Ex 24:12, Ex 30:10, Lev 4:3).

-Much later in Israel’s history God declares that he will establish a different covenant with his people. (Jer 31:31-34)

So that’s most of the Old Testament ‘set up.’ Here is why Jesus had to be divine:

-Only blood sacrifices could cover up or remove sin from people. There had to be some sort of substitution where the sins of a person were transferred to a sacrifice that would substitute for that person. In the Old Testament it was done with animals that were chosen by God, and that is fine, because a) the world is here for man (hopefully we use it responsibly, but that’s a side point), and b) since only man was created in God’s image it is better to substitute an animal than have the sin remain on a person.

-Only perfect sacrifices could be used. No spot or blemish were allowed in any sacrifices. (Ex 12:5, 29:1, Lev 3:1 etc)

Animal Sacrifices were not sufficient for the complete removal of sin. They could only put it off for a time. (Heb 10:1-18 <- this is a good read for this topic in general)

-All of mankind is with blemish and therefore not perfect. (Rom 3:23, 5:12)

Therefore for a man to die to take away sins he had to be divine. He had to not be a son of Adam, but a son of God.

Phew that is long. Let me know if I left anything out or if there are jumps in my reasoning that don't make sense. Or if there is just something you disagree with. I tried to have verses for most things, so that this is a 'Bible analysis' of what the Bible says, and hopefully, as much as possible, this is not my own interpretation but what the Bible says.