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!

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.

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.

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.