Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 47

Troki presents us with a fun dilemma that you do not hear very often from anti-missionaries today. Was Jesus crucified with is will or against his will? If he was crucified against his will, then how could he be designated a God while he was incapable of resisting the power of those who brought him to the cross, and how could he be held as Savior of all mankind who had his will taken away from him?

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

If Jesus was crucified in agreement with his will, as the New Testament teaches, then how can the Jewish crowds be vilified for what they did? And also, why then did Jesus make the following statements?

And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” 

(Matthew 26:39)

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)

The answer is obvious: Jesus was crucified in agreement with his will. A. Lukyn Williams poses the following dilemma to Troki.

I will answer his dilemma fully when he will answer this, this very old one: Is the sin of any man committed with the will of God or against it? If he answers "with the will of God," then every sinner ought to find favor with God; if he says "against the will of God," then God is not supreme. In other words the dilemma proposed by the Rabbi is precisely the same as that of the existence of evil, and the commission of any act of sin. 

Of course, the dilemma is a little different as it relates to Jesus, who did not merely allow himself to be crucified, but had planned on it. These passages also stress the importance of two doctrines: the incarnation and the trinity. God is one being with multiple centers of self-consciousness, and this is the difference between unitarian monotheism and trinitarian monotheism. This passage is not compatible with the former, but it is with the latter. 

This passage also shows that Jesus felt the human emotions of panic and fear that we all feel, although he did not allow them to bring him to sin and disobedience.

The second problem is: how can the Jews of the time be blamed if Jesus was willing to be crucified, and that his crucifixion brought about the greatest good? The answer is that Troki is assuming a view of ethics called consequentialism, which states that the rightness or wrongness of a decision is based on the consequences it produces. Here is the problem: consequentialism is the moral system of a comic book supervillain. Every supervillain thinks that they can create a better world if only they could take it through a painful reshaping process. "If you want to make an omlette, you have to break some eggs" they will say. That seems well and good until you realize that your eggs get broken.

Furthermore, Judas's betrayal also brought about the greatest good for the world, yet Judas was still the villain. The New Testament teaches strongly against consequentialist morality.