Suppose you were to decide that you wanted to reveal God’s love to the people of Chicago. So you move to downtown Chicago and begin walking the streets, helping those who are in trouble, taking time to listen to those who are lonely, and doing all you can to share God’s love with those you meet.

But Chicago is a dangerous place, particularly after dark. And in walking the streets after midnight, you are inevitably taking a risk. You get by with your plan for a time and are able to be a blessing to a number of people. But one night you pass a dark alley where some desperate criminal waits, and you lose your life.

Those who were acquainted with you there in Chicago find out what happened to you. They tell others how you died to show God’s love. And so your death becomes meaningful because of the chances you were willing to take to reach the people of Chicago with the love of God.

Do you think this is a good analogy for Christ’s death on the cross? Was His death necessary in order for us to be forgiven? Or was the death of Christ incidental? Did He come to this earth solely to reveal the love of God, but die simply because earth is a dangerous place to be? Or was His death an integral part of the plan to save mankind?

There is a “moral influence theory” of the atonement which insists that Christ’s death was not essential. It insists that mankind could have been forgiven apart from His death. One of the errors this theory is trying to counteract is the idea of an angry God needing a “pound of flesh” in order to appease His wrath. And it’s true that the purpose of Christ’s death was not to satisfy God’s vengeance. God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself. But was the death of Christ necessary fox- other reasons?

There is this insight in the book The Great Controversy, page 73:

“Jesus died as a sacrifice for man because the fallen race can do nothing to recommend themselves to God. The merits of a crucified and risen Saviour are the foundation of the Christian’s faith.”

The priests and rulers gathered about the cross on the day of the crucifixion. They were unwilling to accept a crucified Christ. They said,

“If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.” Matthew 27:42.

Is it possible to echo that same thought today? Is it possible to want Christ down from the cross, in order to be able to believe?

It is a blow to human pride to admit that we need to be saved, rather than educated. But the whole basis of the Christian faith is the premise that mankind needs a Saviour.

The Bible teaches repeatedly that Christ is our Substitute. Perhaps the best-known passage is in

Isaiah 53.

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Verses 4-6.

The entire sacrificial system, from Adam and Eve at the gates of Eden to the temple ritual of Jesus’ day, was based on the understanding that a substitute was to come to take the place of sinful man in order that he might be saved. Christ was

“the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Revelation 13:8.

However crucifying it may be to the human heart, salvation comes only in accepting the crucified and risen Saviour.

“Kneeling in faith at the cross, he has reached the highest place to which man can attain.” - The Acts of the Apostles, p. 210.