"I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "necessity." Are you speaking of it in a particular philosophical sense?"
I am using it in the Greek philosophical sense of "H Ἀνάγκη", "Necessity", an impersonal, wholly rationalistic, pre-existent, uncreated force which, it was posited, existed beyond the gods and to which the gods were subject. Both Plato and Aristotle dealt with it. "What do you think the following means? Hebrew 8:3 "Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer."" Of course this has to be read within the context of what Hebrews is teaching about and to whom it is written. The High Priest spoken of here is of course Christ. The role of the High Priests in the OT were to mediate in one manner or another between God and mankind, to act in a manner to bring the people to God. But their sacrifices didn't work (Psalm 40:6, 51:16, Isaiah 1:11, Amos 5:21; Jeremiah 6:20; 14:21 and Jeremiah 7:21). The OT does make clear what is an acceptable sacrifice, however, and how what motivated sacrifice is in fact "pleasing" or "acceptable" to God. As I have observed elsewhere, however, these acts are for us, not God. They change us, not God's opinion of us. At any rate, in order for Christ to be recognized by us men as the Hogh Priest, according to our understanding and nature, He had to have a "sacrifice" and that "sacrifice" was His perfect obedience in His human nature to God's will. "When Jesus wept at the tomb of Lazurus that wasn't anthropomorphic, too, was is?" Nope, not anthropomorphic at all. The Holy Fathers at Chalcedon taught us that Christ is fully God and fully Man. Christ's human nature felt and experienced what humans feel and experience. It isn't anthropomorphic to decribe that humanity in human terms.
I have a further question regarding your picture of a "Protestant notion of a bloodthirsty, Dagonesque monster demanding the personal satisifaction of the death on the Cross of His Son because He is offended by our sins. We have no disagreement that the Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ voluntarily gave himself up as an offering for our sin to ransom us. Yet the same Scripture that speaks of His blood sacrifice also says this:
4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
...10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief;[g] when his soul makes[h] an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
These also say that God did it. The LORD crushed him. The LORD put him to grief. The LORD laid on him the iniquity of us all. What do you think? Why else would God do this to His Only Beloved Son if not that our sins are a most severe offense against His Holiness, righteousness and justice? Why does God's love manifest itself in a blood sacrifice, in this brutal manner, if not that it is 'required' by God's justice? Not that God is subject to some pre-existent, impersonal uncreated force called necessity, but simply that these combined actions of justice and mercy flow from Who He Is. If it's just "love" why the blood and killing?
Cordially,