Rotating Header Image

sin kills god: why jesus had to die

Did Jesus have to die?

The classic answer to the question follows under the lovely theological term penal substitutionary atonement or the judicial model. Here the focus is on the intent of Jesus to pay the due price for the sins of humankind through death. Jesus is the one who elects himself to bear the brunt of God's justice for transgression of God's law which is sin and so, he had to die for that to repay the debt. If Jesus does not die, the sins of humankind cannot be forgiven because God's holy law is not satisfied. But maybe Jesus died not for sin, but as a result of sin.

The first problem with this, and here I am more in line with the Eastern Orthodox view of Jesus, is that the expiation for the fallen nature of humankind by virtue of sin begins with the very Incarnation of Jesus. It is in the person of Jesus as fully God and fully human that we witness the image of the true human being as Kierkegaard and then Barth would later emphasize. This makes far more sense. Jesus is the embodiment of a human nature that is assumed by God in order that it may be redeemed and this not just from the end of Jesus' life in the flesh on Good Friday, but from the moment he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Redemption begins at Christmas and not just Easter.

The second problem is that it assumes that God places laws in place that even God cannot change. If the law is that in sin death enters the world, then only by death to "repay" the debt of that sin, can sin be forgiven. The law is placed in terms of an absolute decree that must be fulfilled and since human beings cannot do it by virtue of sin, only one who is without sin can fulfill that law and thereby repay the debt. The resurrection then serves to cancel the debt permanently. This is totally logical, except for the part about God creating immutable laws regarding sin for which the only solution is the sacrifice of God's very own child. Moreover it glosses over the significance that God had already claimed victory over sin and healed the will of human nature in the very Incarnation itself.

Jesus has to die because of who he was and for the new Kingdom of God he came to reveal and found. Throughout the Scriptures those who speak for God and render judgment are the same whom the very Chosen people of God reject. Those who serve God fully are rejected not only by whatever form "the world" might be, but even those who believe they have the right to receive God's Kingdom by who they are and what they do. As Jesus says in Matthew 21:

Finally he sent his son to them, saying, “They will respect my son.” But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, “This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance.” So they seized him, threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. Now when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?’ They said to him, ‘He will put those wretches to a miserable death, and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the produce at the harvest time.’

It might seem radical but it is not a stretch to suggest that when God enters into our presence and disrupts what we believe to be order, that our instinct is to kill God. To get rid of that which is causing the disruption. Jesus had to die because humanity inherently disobeys God. It is the logical outcome of what sin does. The Jews wanted him dead for blaspheming the Law, and the Romans mocked him while his closest followers stood by, watched, and tried to avoid any connection with him. Jesus, the true human, the human being that God had fully assumed, was grotesque and disruptive to all that is human: religion, social class, economy, behavior, psychology, politics, gender, race, etc.

What Jesus offended were the social structures and limitations of what it means to be human. This sort of disruption is exactly what the presence of the Kingdom of God does. He was here to break these apart in order to rebuild them in a limitless continuum that runs straight to the Trinity. However, this is not comfortable human behavior since it demands we change everything – including our very selves – on a continual basis. It demands that we put aside self-preservation in order to experience true life. Conversion is continual and progressive even as the very Kingdom of God is "being revealed" to us and is not yet fully revealed, even in the Scriptures. This is a paradox that requires faith, and courage.

Jesus died because human nature in all of its social structures that protect it kills God when God enters into the presence of human beings. What is unfathomable is that God spites that behavior not with death, the outcome of a fallen nature, but with love and with life. Jesus spites death not as a payment for sin to appease an immutable law of God, but because death is not part of what it means to be truly human.

Related posts:

  1. rethinking why humanity kills god
  2. jesus fulfilled the law so we may love
  3. the problem with jesus satisfying the law on the cross
  4. statement of faith
  5. the word of god became human…

  • Rhyeeciie
    but are we murderers because jesus died for us for our sins, the wages of sin is death,we are born in sin. jesus is the lamb of god. lambs and goats were sacrificrficed for sin, so god was the ultimate sacrifice for all sin. and we live because he died.
    but i am confused i need help 'why did jesus have to die' disscuss is a alf question i have to do and im confused
  • This is an excellent post, Drew!

    I've more and more been thinking along the same lines--that Jesus' death was not because he (masochistically) sought to die "in our place," but simply and profoundly because he refused to give in to the selfish expectations and social structures of "the world." We are so enmeshed in individual and corporate sin, so addicted to the comforts and controls that we try to derive from it, that we find it almost impossible to accept one who repudiates it. We may follow him for a while as he heals the sick, but when it leads to the cross we turn our backs. We may like to style ourselves as selfless and giving, but we rarely go all the way. The truly selfless person who truly refuses to back down in their defense of the powerless is inevitably going to become unacceptable to the system, and leaves us profoundly uncomfortable. How many of us wouldn't have joined Peter in saying "surely not, Lord"?

    So yes, Jesus' death was "voluntary," but not in the sense that he chose to die, rather in the sense that he refused to compromise, even when he knew the stakes were deadly. Yes, Jesus' death was "for our sakes," but not because it satisfied some cosmic equation, but because it showed us that in the end the kind of selfless life that we are too afraid to embrace is not ultimaely self-defeating and meaningless, but is in fact the only way to victory and new life.

    Cheers!
  • craftlessculture
    Hey,

    I think this is very well written and reasoned.

    For the record, although it is only one story, Exodus 32, when Moses talks God out of smiting the Israelites worshipping a golden calf is often cited as an instance where God changes God's mind and is open to human influence. And to say that Jesus died for, say, a political witness, is not to negate that Jesus also died for our sins.

    An interesting question I thought of coming from this essay might be "Where does redemption end?" (Which one might think it does if it begins). Some might think it ends when Christ comes, but I think it ends in the resurrection.
  • I would say that if we are never perfect, but only being perfected in the image of God, then redemption is a continual process that never ends.
  • craftlessculture
    Which I would mean to say that accepting Christ is the beginning of our faith journey, not the end. (That negates nothing you've written, Drew, it's just a conclusion which may sound obvious but which kind of blew my mind when I came to it recently).
  • Brian
    I'm not sure I follow.

    Scripture is clear that "There is no one righteous, no not one." Also, just as sin entered through Adam, so also righteousness through Christ.

    We are also told plainly that we serve a holy, unchanging God. To suggest that Jesus did not die as a payment for our sins nullifies the essence of the Gospel and Scripture.

    Could you please clarify? Do you reject original sin and Christ's imputation of righteousness?
  • For the first part, right. What I am presenting is that as Christ is the righteous one of God, the response to righteousness by sin is to destroy it.

    The idea of an unchanging God is fine with this idea too. However, I think saying that Jesus did not die for a payment of sin nullifies the essence of the Gospel over-reaches. What I present complicates one interpretation of the atonement but with an interpretation that makes sense of Scripture as well - I would argue, even better since it begins with atonement from the incarnation all the way through the cross keeping central focus on the person and work of Christ throughout his entire time with us in the flesh.. The point is that sin kills God and so, we ought not sin, but that since we cannot but sin it is only through Christ's resurrection that our innate hatred of God is redeemed.
  • Brian
    Still not sure I follow you, but maybe I'm just thick. "Sin kills God" - I must assume you mean that metaphorically somehow as God is certainly not kill-able.

    Christ's sacrifice for us was voluntary - not forced upon Him (Matt 26:53, Phil: 2: 1-11). He choose to redeem us through His death and resurrection.

    The act of sin is rebellion against God and, fully carried out, pushes us to want to become God (not kill Him per se). Was this not the heart of the original sin, where Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the garden so that they could "become like God?"

    Indeed, Christ's payment of our sin-debt is the heart of the Gospel. Without it, our message is void. Had Christ simply been born (and not died on the cross or been resurrected), we would all be lost.
  • I like this Drew. Makes sense to me.
blog comments powered by Disqus