In many Christian circles, when people think about why Jesus died on the cross, the following is the basic logic that many believe:
God is infinitely holy and righteous. As such, any sin against God is an infinite offense. Therefore, an infinite sacrifice is required to cover an infinite offense. Because humans are sinners, we deserve eternal punishment for our eternal offense. But God wanted to show mercy to us, and so He sent Jesus to die in our place. Since Jesus is God, the death of Jesus is an infinite sacrifice, which is therefore sufficient to cover the infinite offense of sin.
Though different authors, pastors, and teachers will explain the death of Jesus in different ways, this is the basic outline many will use. I used to teach and write about the death of Jesus in this same way, and in fact, many of the posts and sermons which you can find on this blog will contain this exact sort of theological explanation about the death of Jesus.
But let us look a little deeper at what this sort of explanation says about God, sin, righteousness, and the death of Jesus.
The logic of the argument above basically teaches that God gets so worked up over sin, He wants to burn forever and ever those who commit any sin. And since James 2:10 says that even one sin makes us guilty, it doesn’t even matter if we only commit “small” sins. Sin is sin, and even “small” sins deserve eternal hell fire. So if you get mad at your neighbor when his dog digs through your trash, or if you are not completely honest with your boss about why you were ten minutes late for work, God’s justice demands that you get punished the same as if you were serial rapist and mass murderer.
Though this seems unjust, people explain that it only seems unjust because we are sinful human beings and think that some sins are not as bad as others. We are told that since God is infinitely holy and righteous, all sins, no matter how small, are an infinite offense to His holiness. So even getting angry at our neighbor’s dog or lying about why we were 10 minutes late for work is an infinite affront to the righteousness of God, and therefore, deserving of infinite punishment.
But … things don’t seem so cut and dry when we rephrase the question a bit …
Look what happens when we turn the question around:
So it is wrong for me to get angry at my neighbor when his dog digs through my trash, but it is perfectly righteous for God to be eternally angry at me for getting angry at my neighbor? And while I vent my anger by muttering under my breath while I pick up the garbage in my lawn, God gets over His anger … never … while I burn for all eternity in hell?
When the question is presented this way, this sort of god just doesn’t seem very godly. Or at least … this sort of god doesn’t look at all like Jesus.
The typical response, of course, is that this why God sent Jesus. God didn’t actually want humanity to burn forever for muttering under our breath at our neighbor, but His justice demanded that He behave like this. God was sort of captive to His own righteous justice.
But since He loves us so much, He sent His Son Jesus to suffer and die in our place, so that all that “righteous” rage can get poured out on Jesus instead of on us.
Again, this is exactly what I used to believe and teach.
But in recent years, I have begun to have doubts that this is exactly what happened (Get my series of posts on the death and resurrection of Jesus to learn more.)
Problems with the Traditional Explanation of the Death of Jesus
Does it make sense to think that Jesus came to rescue us from God? Does it make sense to think that God sent Jesus to rescue us from Himself? Or at least, from some aspect of Himself?
IF so, God now appears rather schizophrenic. Does God want to kill us for all eternity or love us for all eternity? The theological explanation above makes it sound as if He wants both.
Furthermore, what good does it do for God to pour out His wrath upon the innocent victim, Jesus?
Let us say that after I get angry at my neighbor for letting his dog spread garbage all over my lawn, I go down the street and set a different neighbor’s house on fire. Does my act of arson do anything to relieve my anger at the first neighbor or his dog? No! Setting an innocent third party’s house on fire does not alleviate my wrath toward the guilty party at all. This would still be true if the innocent neighbor noticed my anger at my neighbor’s dog, and said, “Don’t be angry at him; instead, come burn my house down.”
I would look at him like he is crazy. How would burning down his house help me at all? Yet this is what we think happened with God’s wrath in the killing of Jesus. Somehow, though God was angry at us, His anger was appeased by letting us kill His Son? I just don’t see how that would help the situation.
But there are other problems beyond this.
God’s love and grace for us is supposedly unconditional. But if He couldn’t actually show us love and grace unless Jesus first came to die on the cross in our place, then isn’t that a condition on His love and grace? It seems that if Jesus had not come to die, then according to this traditional understanding of the death of Jesus, God could not have shown His “unconditional” love and grace for us.
Furthermore, people say that God had to pour out His wrath against sin upon somebody (either us or Jesus) in order to satisfy his justice. Yet then we say that God did this out of His mercy.
But this is logically impossible.
By definition, mercy and justice are mutually exclusive. If a man robs a bank and then goes to prison for 20 years, this might be considered justice. But what if, after the crook spends 20 years in prison, the judge meets him at the prison gates and says, “Aren’t I merciful to let you out of prison today?” The recently-freed man would say, “You’re not merciful. I just spent 20 years in jail. Mercy would have been setting me free 20 years ago.” You see? If justice is satisfied, there is no need for mercy. And if one chooses to show mercy, then by definition, they cannot also demand justice. Yet if God poured out His wrath upon Jesus to satisfy His justice, then God is a just God, but He is not merciful. On the other hand, if God decides to show mercy to humankind, then, by definition, He cannot demand justice, even justice upon Jesus.
I could go on and on about this, but here’s the point: There are numerous flaws with the idea that the death of Jesus paid the penalty for our sins or satisfied the wrath of God.
Logically and theologically, it just doesn’t work.
But there is a bigger problem still …
Jesus: The Pagan Sacrifice to God
A short while back I wrote a post about a few things Christians can learn from Pagans. A guy on Facebook blew up about this, leaving comment after comment after comment about how ridiculous it was to suggest such a thing. He argued that Paganism has infiltrated Christianity in numerous ways, and we must root out and destroy all such pagan influences, traditions, and customs.
I know where he is coming from, but I just think that (1) his position is logically, theologically, and realistically impossible, and (2) the most pagan things about Christianity are found at the core beliefs and behaviors of many Christians — especially those who are on the war-path against pagan influences.
In my experience, for example, those who are most concerned with getting rid of all pagan influences in Christianity, are also those who tend to be the most judgmental and critical toward those Christians who still incorporate some of those pagan traditions and customs. But which is more pagan: putting tinsel on a Christmas tree or judging and condemning the people who do?
What does all this have to do with the death of Jesus?
At the core of much of Christian theology is the pagan idea that God requires blood sacrifice to forgive sins. The vast majority of Christians believe that God hates sin so much that He is filled with wrath toward sin.
He hates sin so much, we are told, that He cannot even be in sin’s presence.
But, we are told, God’s wrath toward sin can be appeased with blood. God needs someone to pay for the eternal offense of sin against Him and His holiness. Thankfully, as the theory goes, just when God was demanding that all of us wretched sinners open our veins for God to appease His wrath toward us, Jesus stepped up and said, “I’ll take the bullet. I’ll die for them all.”
So Jesus came to earth, died as a sacrifice for our sins, poured out His blood upon God’s heavenly altar, and in so doing, appeased the wrath of God.
When God looks at us now, He doesn’t see sin; He sees Jesus. Therefore, instead of wanting to incinerate us, God can now love us.
Again, this is the basic sort of theology we hear in most churches about the death of Jesus and why He had to come and suffer and die.
But do you know where this entire theology comes from? Not from Scripture, but from Paganism!
Almost every religion in the world has the idea that the gods are mad at us for our sin, and we must do things to appease their wrath. We must sacrifice our goats, and make vows to visit holy places, and commit to treating people with more love (or commit to killing certain “enemies” of the gods).
When our sin is really serious, the gods want blood, whether it is our own blood, or the blood from someone in our family. As a last resort, the gods may accept the blood of a valuable animal.
And yes, I know that the most popular way of reading the Old Testament sees support for this idea in the Mosaic Law. When most people read the laws that are recorded in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, they see an angry god who wants blood.
But this sacrificial way of reading the Bible is influenced heavily by paganism, and is not at all what Scripture teaches.
When the Pentateuch is understood in its entirety, it appears that the message of the Pentateuch is that God was never angry at people and never wanted sacrifices and offerings, but wanted instead a people for Himself who lived by faith in God and with justice and mercy before a watching world. See Sailhamer’s magnum opus for more on this.
Furthermore, when the Israelite prophets come on the scene, nearly all of them decry and condemn the sacrificial system as not at all reflecting what was in God’s heart. Jeremiah says that God never commanded his people to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings (Jeremiah 7:22-23). Amos says that God hated their religious festivals and burnt offerings (Amos 5:21-24). Micah points out that God doesn’t need thousands of rams and rivers of oil, and definitely not a family’s firstborn son. Instead, God wants justice, kindness, and humility (Micah 6:6-8). God is not delighted with sacrifices and offerings, says the Psalmist, but with a broken and contrite spirit (Psalm 51:16-17).
So it is no surprise, when Jesus comes on the scene, that He tells people through His words and His actions that God is not angry with His people, that He does not want more sacrifices and offerings, that He loves, accepts, and freely forgives all people, no matter what.
While Jesus did proclaim freedom from sin, He did not do so on the basis of the sacrificial system (or even His own sacrifice), but simply on the basis of God’s limitless love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness.
God forgives, simply because He is a loving and forgiving God. End of story. No sacrifices, offerings, blood, or death are required.
So Why Then Did Jesus Die?
When Jesus went to the cross, He did not die for God.
There are numerous reasons Jesus died. One was to put death to death. Another was to defeat sin and the devil (cf. Heb 2:14-18; Rom 6:4-13; 1 Cor 15:22, 45). But one reason I want to focus on here is that Jesus wanted to expose the lie of the scapegoat: the religious lie that an innocent victim must die for sin.
To put it bluntly, Jesus died to expose religion as a big, fat, satanic lie.
In His death, Jesus put to death the religious requirement of death. In His death, Jesus exposed the emptiness of the sacrificial system for what it was: a form of satanic enslavement by which humans think they are appeasing God for that which He had already forgiven them for.
Religion says: God is angry with you, but will forgive you if you do great things for Him and offer valuable things to Him. By going to the cross under the condemnation of religion, and then being raised again to new life, Jesus exposed the powerful and satanic lie of religion.
Through His death and resurrection, Jesus announced loud and clear that God is not angry at sin, and that just as sin, death, and the devil have no hold on God, they have no hold on us either.
God is not angry at sin. If He’s angry at anything, He is angry at enslavement. God wants us to live free.
And while sin does enslave, the greatest slaver of all is religion.
As such, God wants to free us from religion more than He wants to free us from sin. This is what Jesus proclaimed through His life, death, and resurrection.
The Resurrection of Religion
Sadly, within a few short years of Jesus’ ascension, Christians returned once again the sacrificial mentality of religion. They took the satanic desire to appease God through sacrifice and applied it to Jesus Christ, saying that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice which appeased God once and for all. And ever since this shift was made under Augustine and Anselm, Christianity has been little more than another world religion which seeks to appease God through good behavior and personal sacrifice.
So if people truly want to rid themselves of all things pagan, they need to start not with their holidays and traditions, but with their theology.
Most specifically, we need to rid ourselves of this idea that God is angry at us for our sin and needs to be appeased through blood and sacrifice. This has never been true of God and is not true today.
The sacrificial reading of Scripture is a pagan reading of Scripture, which does not represent the heart of God, but represents a pagan view of God in which God is angry and must be appeased through sacrifice and human merit.
In contrast to this, the God revealed in Jesus Christ is not angry, but loves freely and forgives freely. No ifs, ands, or buts. The death of Jesus did not secure for us the forgiveness of God. God already forgave us freely by His grace.
Now, some of you might be thinking about Hebrews 9:22. But this post is already WAY too long, and an examination of Hebrews 9:22 deservers a post of its own.
The cross of Jesus is CENTRAL to everything!
Transform your life and theology by focusing on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus:
Fill out the form below to receive several emails from me about the death and resurrection of Jesus.
(Note: If you are a member of RedeemingGod.com, login and then revisit this page to update your membership.)
Yikes it’s a huge topic. There’s theological and cultural reasons, not necessarily pagan, for thinking that Christ died to appease God’s wrath. The Old Testament definitely frames God who accepts sacrifices to remove his judgment/wrath. The short answer is that scripture doesn’t directly suggest that Christ appeased God’s wrath, and the rest is a long conversation. But we have to be careful. Scripture doesn’t directly infer a trinity but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. I understand Christ’s sacrifice is to take away the penalty of sin, namely death.
You said this:
“Does it make sense to think that Jesus came to rescue us from God? Does it make sense to think that God sent Jesus to rescue us from Himself? Or at least, from some aspect of Himself?”
I would say that Jesus came to rescue us from death, not God. He was/is God rescuing us from death, ourselves, Satan’s tricks and traps, sin, that which leads us to death. Where do you think I am wrong?
Excellent ! 😀 This is the crux of the matter 😉 <3
I appreciate the article. I disagree with most of it, but that’s okay. My purpose in commenting is not to debate where we disagree, but to comment on one sentence only. Calling the sacrificial system of the OT a “form of satanic enslavement by which humans think they are appeasing God for that which He had already forgiven them for” seems to ignore the idea throughout Leviticus (and elsewhere) that the sacrificial system was commanded by God. We can disagree on what the system was and how it relates to the death of Jesus, but I think you’re reading more into the text than is there.
“…that the sacrificial system was commanded by God.”
I used to think that same thing. Then I encountered Gal. 3 in a way I hadn’t before, especially this statement;
“Obviously this law was not a firsthand encounter with God. It was arranged by angelic messengers through a middleman, Moses.”
Moses and angels are responsible for the Law and its sacrificial system–which is a reflection of human thinking, not God’s need or want for blood sacrifice.
So according to your claim, not only are Moses and the angels responsible for the ten commandments, but the ten commandments are also a reflection of human thinking – the same commandments that Jesus affirmed and told people to keep if they love Him.
Well just to play devil’s advocate, and since your older posts imply that we can learn from paganism, then shouldn’t we think that the pagans got right that there’s a penalty/judgement/wrath to be averted but got wrong on how such a fate/judgement is to be resolved.
The question I am asking: Is there anything at all to be averted?
If there is only God’s love, then really there’s nothing to fear. Or what about God’s holiness which is the really frightening thing, not so much his wrath but how absolutely apart God’s nature is from mine. It’s like the heat of the sun, not that the sun wants to be extremely hot but that’s its nature. Without Christ there is nothing but to expect to be consumed by the heat of God’s holiness. While God’s love is very much there, his nature will destroy you without some kind of protection.
I think of sin not as something that angers God so much as something that comes between us and God. God wants us to live a certain way not so the He can ‘lord’ it over us, but because He wants what is best for us. A sacrifice is defined as the giving up of something of value. The sacrifices of the old testament were not done to appease God’s wrath but to show a willingness to give up something of value to atone for our sins and remove that which separates us from Him. Jesus showed His love for us by sacrificing the one thing that was not tainted by sin. To make this ‘sacrifice’ He willingly endured the torture that lead to His death. “For God so loved the world…”.
Is Romans not scripture anymore? why don’t I get these memos.
Roger, I briefly tried to answer that objection in the article. Check the section where I reference Sailhamer’s book and the section following it where numerous prophets quote God as saying that he never commanded sacrifices and offerings, and did not want them. I know I need to flesh this out some more, but that is the beginning point of my response. On Thursday I will publish a post about Hebrews 9:22 which may help further.
Yuri, Excellent point and good question. In the full article, I did briefly refer to that article I wrote about paganism, but I didn’t deal with your question specifically. I actually think that in going to the cross, Jesus was redeeming the sacrificial system. That is, He wasn’t making sacrifices okay, but was setting it free (and US) from the bondage to the sacrificial system we were in. This is what redemption is all about – buying back to set free.
Matthew, Yes, I agree. Sin breaks our fellowship with God. It also damages and hurts us, which is why God wants us to keep away from it. Great point.
Thomas, I didn’t get that memo either. Much of what I have written in this article is pulled directly from Pauline theology in Romans, though I do not mention it. The way I read and understand Paul’s letter to the Romans has led me to the views I express here.
Jeremy, thanks for your response. I like and agree with the freedom aspect to it. I think the big mistake is the idea that a debt was owed and had to be repaid. As you probably know so well that the Middle Ages with scholastics really confused everyone.
Jeremy – thanks for the response. I haven’t read Sailhamer’s book, and cannot in the near future (hope to this summer, tho). However, I’ll briefly address just one of those passages you cited. My point is not to debate the meaning of the text or say “you are wrong” so much as to show how I understand the verses:
Jer. 7:22-23 says “I did not command them… concerning burnt offering and sacrifices.” if this means God did not tell them to sacrifice, then we have a contradiction in Scripture. Leviticus uses the words”the Lord spoke” or “the Lord said” at least nine times in the context of describing the sacrificial system. So what did Jeremiah mean? As I understand it, he meant “the primary purpose was not sacrifice, but faithful obedience.” (“concerning” is a very broad term in Hebrew).
Similar thoughts flow from the other passages as well – it wasn’t the sacrifices in themselves that God desired (ritual) but heart. He didn’t say “do not sacrifice”, rather “sacrifice without heart is insufficient” (my paraphrase). We can disagree as to their meaning, but that does not nullify that God designed and commanded the sacrificial system. As a matter of fact, I probably would not have said anything (except maybe, “interesting”), if you had not had the statement linking the sacrificial system and “satanic enslavement”.
Hope that makes sense…
We’re on the same page on getting people INTO a relationship with Jesus and AWAY from man-made religion, legalism, etc. We just disagree on some of the details 🙂
I am amazed that one could set out to explain the death of Jesus without dealing with a single New Testament passage on the topic? I really hope this is a big setup, since the letter to the Hebrews is mentioned there at the end and tends to contradict several points made in the post…
Yes. This is a small part of a 10,000+ word I wrote. In one section, which may not get posted, I review several of the relevant NT texts. I will, however, post the study on Hebrews 9:22. It goes up on Thursday.
you write as though God an obligation to save us but the truth is God didn not haveto saveany of us i believe in Substitutionary penal atonement in other words God the Father wassatisfied with offering of His son’s death which is the only way we can be saved. in Romans it says that we were in fact saved from the wrath to come
Another note. It seems that the words ‘offering’ and ‘sacrifice’ are not synonymous. The word ‘offering’ appears more often (in KJV) than ‘sacrifice’ and seems to be intended as a gift or tribute, not an appeasement. Still looking at uses of ‘sacrifice’.
I suppose that pagan gods use blood as appeasement so men believe through this appease the pagan gods will smile on them. The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, reguired blood because the blood covenent that He establsihed with his people was broken with the crafting of the golden calf. It was a legal contract sealed in blood. The death of the offenser was the price for breaking it, as the Almighty told Moses, I am going to kill them and start over with you. Moses’s intercession stop the Almighty and in its place the sacrifical sysyem was insituted to remind the people that their blood iwas required, but since their blood was polluted, time would have to wait until the prophesy was fulfilled in a futher Passover when The prophet of whom Moses spoke of would came.
Yuri, Yes, that debt-repayment idea has had tragic consequences to the life and theology of the church.
Roger, Yes, that is a possible way to reconcile the prophets with the Law of Moses, and the only way I was aware of until reading Sailhamer’s book. He also holds to inspiration and inerrancy (as do I), and he also holds to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, but has found a compelling way to show that Moses was actually undermining the law and pointing out that it was not what God wanted or intended for His people. I am probably overstating his case a little bit, but it has been real gamechanger for me.
Paul, I do think God is obligated. But it is not an obligation we put upon Him, but is an obligation He put upon Himself. It is a divinely-ordained obligation. As for wrath … whew! … what a topic. I just don’t think it means “anger,” and I think a contextual study of the term in Romans shows that Paul didn’t understand it that way either.
Matthew, Right! They are not synonymous at all! In fact, in Hebrews 9-10, the author uses the “sacrifice” of Jesus to subvert the sacrificial system, and then redeems it by transitioning to speaking about the “offering” of Jesus.
Dean, yes, that is somewhat similar to the approach I take. I will have a post go up tomorrow or Thursday about this idea in Hebrews 9-10.
Thx for response. I’ll have to read sailhamer but i’m not buying it.
Roger, you mean you’re not buying the book, or you’re not going to buy his argument? If the latter, don’t even bother reading it. You’ll just waste your time.
the more i read this article it sounds like youare saying that sin and the price that was paid for our sin is really no big deal to God and shouldnt be to us
Hmmm… I responded using my phone, but I don;t see it here. Weird. Anyway, Jeremy – you’re reading too much into my reponse. I’ll chalk it off to poor wording on my behalf. What I meant was, I see nothing in the text that points to your (or Sailhamer’s) conclusion, so I am a skeptic (thus, the “I’m not buying it’). That doesn’t mean I’m not teachable, but he’ll have to convince me, which won’t be easy. The idea of Moses “undermining” the law is difficult to accept, so it won’t be an easy “sell”. But I am open minded enough to listen to his arguments.
Your reply to me felt judgmental, but I’ll attribute that as well to my poor wording in the previous post.
Roger, Yes, FB exchanges are fraught with potential misunderstandings. I am sorry my response came out the way it did. Thanks for your gracious response in return. Undermining was probably the wrong word. Sailhamer is arguing what Paul says in Gal 3:19: the law was added because of transgression. The basic argument is that God wanted a relationship based on faith. Moses knew God wanted this. But the people didn’t want it. So God gave them a religion of priests and sacrifices and laws instead. must like He later gave them a King (Saul) because they wanted one, even though He knew it was not best for them.
^^ thanks, Jeremy.
Regarding scapegoating :
Girard is right to make this distinction, of course, and even right to do so with a degree of prophetic fervor; but the dangers of his method are many: he risks leaving Israel behind and so, in consequence , the world.
…..the effect of his account of salvation is that Christ comes to look almost like a Marcionite savior, who does not so much inaugurate the liberating history of God with us as describe a path of flight from time. Rather than the form that stands in the midst of creation to declare the true shape of creation, Christ looks suspiciously like a figure who saves simply by pointing beyond every economy – and every world; but society is exchange, giving and taking, even in some sense sacrificing one thing for another, offering one thing up for another. Does Christ then offer a new order of exchange and sacrifice, or is he simply the abnegation of human solidarity, a revolutionary outcry that forever interrupts the story of the world but tells no story of its own? Is salvation merely the liberation of souls from the bondage of the world? Again, Girard intends to say no such thing; but where, in the world, does the victim have a story of his own? The answer, for Christian thought, must begin with Israel, apart from which one cannot grasp the way of being that Christ embodies and that the Father vindicates at Easter; it is in Israel’s many orders of sacrifice that sacrifice (conceived as an economy of violence) begins to be undone. Girard, however, fails to see the richness, multivalency, and ambiguity inherent in the language of sacrifice in Jewish and Christian thought; he fails to grasp, in particular, the conversion theology effects of the story of wrath into the story of mercy, or how it replaces the myth of sacrifice as economy with the narrative of sacrifice as a ceaseless outpouring of gift and restoration in an infinite motion exceeding every economy ”
I think there is more to it
I was with you with the sacrifice to satisfy a deity is immoral (or pagan as you put it). But to say Jesus had to die to condemn that system is more illogical. That’s like saying I only crashed your car because I wanted to let you know how broken the system of people crashing other people’s cars is… your welcome.
Yes, but this is because we all know that crashing cars is bad. We didn’t know (nor do most recognize today) that sacrificial scapegoating violence is bad. And Jesus didn’t just enter into scapegoating violence to show us it was bad, but to destroy it from the inside (which, as the only truly innocent victim in history, only He was able to do).
First, the Temple sacrifices was for unknown sin, and could only have effect if true repentence for knowns sin was done. Next, Temple offerings could only be offered in the Temple, and as it was destroyed year 70 the Jewish people no longer could be involved with sacrifices.
Mostly the forgiveness talked about concerned with blood, was for some mistake made by the preasts in the Temple room. Really, no blood is needed to be forgiven for sin by the Lord, for He has always been forgiving his people of both known and unknown sin, as they repent of their known sin.
I came across you Jeremy while looking for info on how God subverted the cultural sacrifice systems of the Old Testament era. Comments above point out that God commanded sacrifice at points within the Old Testament. But it seems that most of the Old Testament – the creation, the law, the sacrifice system, the temple, even the concept of God on a throne – are taking institutions within pagan culture, as a communication point, and transforming them. This transformation doesn’t reach its peak until Jesus. But this shows, doesn’t it, that none of these institutions started with God. I am looking for info on the Old Testament sacrifice in the law, that may show the subversion of the “gift to deity” concept into the self-giving for creation liberation concept of sacrifice. Its very hard to find.
Paul makes it clear that “the wages of sin is death”. This was the pronouncement on Adam and Eve for their sin in the garden, and it has transferred down through the generations to us. We are imperfect, we sin, and we die. It’s as simple as that.
Well, not quite. Adam and Eve were created as immortal beings, able to have intimate fellowship with their Creator. They were not meant to die. When they sinned, they automatically bought the death sentence that goes with their disobedience. The problem was, how could they regain their immortality and fellowship with their Creator.
Enter Yahshua (your J-dude). He came not to die for anyone’s sins. This article explains that precisely. He came in order that we may have eternal life, and be restored to that state of perfection, but how is it accomplished.
A rich man came and asked how he might attain eternal life. He explained how he had kept the law, but deep down inside knew that it wasn’t enough. Yahshua told him to sell all he had and follow me (Him). He told His followers to pick up their cross and follow Him. What was His example. A well lived life according to Torah law (we can’t ever hope to achieve that, but we can continually ask for forgiveness), and a sacrifice which ends in death. He said that the path to eternal life is through the straight and narrow gate, and that there would be few who would achieve that. How can we do it? Maybe we can’t, but if we’re living right, chances are we are at war with the world, and eventually we will be tested in this life or the next (or so I believe). You see, Revelation tells us that we will all receive a resurrection to judgment. What will that judgment involve?
Revelation also tells us that Satan will be loosed from his cage for a short time, and will go around to tempt the nations one last time. This makes it very simple. Join the rebellion or die. If you join this final satanic rebellion, you will lose any chance you had at salvation, and I don’t care how “saved” or “born again” you think you are. You will go to hell.
This makes it real simple. One final test of your faith. Die, and receive a crown of life. Join, and spend eternity in hell with Satan. The choice is yours. I pray you and I make the right choice.
Very good article!
While they were created to have intimate fellowship with God, the Bible doesn’t say Adam and Eve were created as immortal beings. Their ability to maintain their fellowship with God and stay alive depended on their obedience to God. They disobeyed God’s command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil so they were expelled from the garden of Eden. Their fellowship with God was broken and with them no longer having access to the tree of life they were subject to death.
Jesus came to reconcile man back to God. The Bible plainly states all have sinned and are deserving of God’s wrath. Because of man’s sinful condition there is nothing he can do to save himself. Jesus, God manifest in the flesh, stepped in and willing gave His life as payment for our sins.
“Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father” (Galatians 1:4)
“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” (Romans 5:8-9)
Once a person is saved they are sealed by God’s Holy Spirit. There are no works you can do to save yourself and there are no works you can do or have to do to keep yourself saved. God saves you and keeps you saved.
Lets’ see what the Bible says about a person who believes the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).
We are blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ (Ephesians 1: 3)
Some of these blessing include:
Our sins are forgiven – Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14 and 2:13, Galatians 1:4
We have peace with God – Romans 5:1
We have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us – 2 Corinthians 5:21
We are a new creature in Christ – 2 Corinthians 5:17
We are baptized into the body of Christ – 1 Corinthians 12:13
We are indwelt with the Holy Spirit – 1 Corinthians 6:19
We are sealed with the Spirit – Ephesians 1:13
We are sealed with the Spirit unto the day of redemption – Ephesians 4:30
We are preserved in Christ – Jude 1
We will be confirmed to the end by Christ – 1 Corinthians 1:8
We are citizens of the household of God – Ephesians 2:19
We are in the kingdom of God’s Son – Colossians 1:13
We are complete in Christ – Colossians 2:9-10
If you want to know correct doctrine for the church age believer you need to focus on what God tells us through the Pauline epistles. Much false doctrine comes about because people don’t know how to rightly divide the word of truth. Much false doctrine comes about because people don’t rightly divide books such as Matthew and Revelation.
What do you mean by rightly divide books such as Matthew and Revelation? What do you mean by the word divide? Please define divide.
Jeremy, you are quoted in an at the Evangelical Universalist, titled “Is God Bloodthirsty?” at
http://evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=7195
“As Jeremy Myers has pointed out, ‘In His death, Jesus put to death the religious requirement of death.’ —Satan being the religionist.”
1st John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Was Apostle John crazy?
**Disclaimer: This post is made with a genuinely interested and humble heart. I’m not trying to start something. I’m just trying to learn.**
Ever since Michael Gungor and Audrey Assad went off against Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) on Twitter, I’ve been trying to learn about the various theories out there. When I asked Assad about her views, she gave me a response that seemed based off a combo of emotion and logic rather than Scripture. She then referred me to the Antiochian Orthodox statement on the atonement, which also neglects references to Scripture. So I now come to your post, which also seems to neglect Scriptural references to support your argument.
On the other hand, just about every article I read in defense of PSA has frequent references to Scripture. It’s hard for me to see this and not think that arguments against PSA are made simply because people don’t like it. It’s as if they are trying to water down God so as to make Him more palatable for people.
I believe and affirm that Christ’s death gave Him (and those who follow Him) victory and power over sin, Satan, and death (Christus Victor theory). I also believe that Christ’s selfless sacrifice is a great example for us to follow (Moral theory). But I do also believe, based on Scripture, that the wrath of God is upon us unless we repent and follow His Son (Romans 1:18; Psalm 2:12; John 3:36; etc.). And I believe that Jesus bore that wrath on our behalf (Isaiah 53; Romans 3:21-26). I think PSA, Christus Victor, Moral are all important parts of the atonement.
I hope you’ll respond to my critique because I am genuinely interested in this.
Thanks!
Adam
Adam,
It really just comes down to readability. I write my blog for a general reading audience. When many of the sentences end with lots of Bible references, it makes them harder to read. But this doesn’t mean I don’t have high regard for the authority of Scripture, or that I don’t use Scripture to inform and guide my theology. I do.
However, I also know that anybody can reference Bible verses. I have read some of the strangest theology books and articles by people who are absolutely wrong, but who nevertheless pepper their paragraphs will dozens of Bible references. The presence (or absence) of Bible references is not a reliable indicator of proper theology.
My suggestion is to read Peter Jennings and dereck Flood on this subject..they give scripture.
Thank you so much. I’m not a Christian but I had a sudden flash of insight because of what you’ve written here. I’m seeing more and more similarities between the core messages of different teachings that eventually formed into religion.
So glad it is clicking! It sounds like God is drawing you to Himself! Keep being open! (but don’t get sucked back into religion)
I don’t understand what you said,
“Religion says: God is angry with you, but will forgive you if you do great things for Him and offer valuable things to Him. By going to the cross under the condemnation of religion, and then being raised again to new life, Jesus exposed the powerful and satanic lie of religion.
Romans 5 says through God’s first (formed/created) son, Adam, we all sined and through God’s only begotten Son (quicking Spirit), we are all free, alive, etc.
Dear author, you don’t ever seem to say exactly or specifically, WHY Jesus died. Please explain.
Why did Jesus die?
In Christianity we are taught that Jesus was willing to die, because he wanted to please God. Jesus wanted the Will of God to happen, and so we are taught that it was the will of God that this man named Jesus was brutally tortured and murdered. Really?
What kind of a God is in Christianity?
Someone who tortures and murders, someone who kills Christ, so that the sinners can have their way and sin. Well, isn’t that the Anti-Christ itself, by definition?
Yes. This is why many Christians (myself included) do NOT believe that Jesus died to appease God. God is non-violent and did not need or require Jesus to die in order to earn/purchase forgiveness of sins. Jesus died for a completely different reason.
Ok. What would you say is the reason?
Okay. Here is the common ground between christianity and atheism. Let’s just call sin for what it is. Dysfunction. We are born dysfunctional. Yes? And pretty much build on that modus operandus in one way or another. In fact in loads of ways. Get over it! With respect to our position in life we can also put the cart before the horse a lot. Who out there believes in God??? How ridiculous is that question or statement. Believe in God!! Does a washing machine believe in it,s designer. No! But the designer believes in his washing machine. And that leaves us in the position that God believes in us. A much better place to be. He believes in us despite us! Thankfully we are inseperatable from his belief in us. Yes. We may loose sight of this often but it remains. In fact some have never even seen this for the first time. Oh what joy when they do. The rebirth. The new life with the father.
Okay. Here is the common ground between christianity and atheism. Let’s just call sin for what it is. Dysfunction. We are born dysfunctional. Yes? And pretty much build on that modus operandus in one way or another. In fact in loads of ways. Get over it! With respect to our position in life we can also put the cart before the horse a lot. Who out there believes in God??? How ridiculous is that question or statement. Believe in God!! Does a washing machine believe in it,s designer. No! But the designer believes in his washing machine. And that leaves us in the position that God believes in us. A much better place to be. He believes in us despite us! Thankfully we are inseperatable from his belief in us. Yes. We may loose sight of this often but it remains. In fact some have never even seen this for the first time. Oh what joy when they do. The rebirth. The new life with the father.
We do not need forgiveness from Satan, but from God, so this is where I disagree here. This line of thought denies that God does actually have a problem with sin and seems to often indicate that God is incapable of hate. God hates sin so much His only son had to die for it. If there was another way it would have been evil of God not to choose the other way! God is bound by His word as well as His nature and character. Sin was enough to cast satan and the fallen out of His presence in heaven. God himself had to shed the blood of an animal to cover Adam and Eve after the fall. There is definitely a spiritual purpose for blood and just because pagans perverted it, it should not result in the complete dismissal of the purpose. God does hate sin, BECAUSE it separated His holy spirit from our human spirits at the fall and gave the demonic access to our lives. The blood sacrifice by Jesus allowed that Holy Spirit to be rejoined with our spirits through a blood covenant relationship (blood has a voice that cries out to God- Abel’s), and it is through this new relationship that all the powers of evil were overcome. The spirit of God cannot dwell in an unclean place. Jesus was clean, he could hang around the unclean but the unclean were not filled with the presence of God they were simply around the one who was. There are spiritual laws that must be obeyed, even by God, there is life in the blood and therefore a debt had to be paid to free us from sin (which resulted in death). The abrahamic covenant which is also based on righteousness by faith, required blood (circumcision). God works according to the covenant He is in. God is non-violent in his nature but because of spiritual laws set in place, violence will manifest through sin and “Gods wrath” would be a simple removal of His presence from a person or nation, giving satan free reign to cause violence, which i believe is what happened to Jesus on the cross. God could just stand back and let evil do what it naturally does and use that to accomplish His purposes for good. Bet they got a shock afterwards.
Well, the above makes more sense about God,but then how do we justify scriptures on the concepts of salvation like the reconciliation, propitiation, redemption and the alike?
Hebrews 7 seems to say that a sacrifice was indeed required: “Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.”
Hebrews 9 appears to say that Christ’s sacrifice was indeed a necessary thing: “He has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.”
God’s love of man and forgiveness of man is described in numerous passages of the Old Testament. I see no reason to believe that we need a savior to obtain God’s forgiveness. The messiah of the Jews is strictly a worldly deliverer and is not to be confused with an eschatological savior.. New Testament passages which portray the death on the cross as essential to God’s forgiveness are at odds with Old Testament passages concerning God’s forgiveness. Perhaps this discrepancy is attributable to Roma influence upon New Testament authors.
it is written without the shedding of the blood there can be no forgiveness of sins. Jesus took upon himself the iniquity of us all and God’s wrath fell upon Him and was satisfied (it even pleased God to crush him Isaiah 53: 10). On that cross is where justice and mercy meet – Isaiah 53:5-6. The debt has been paid therefore satisfied.
First, I want to thank you Jeremy for all the work you have put into this website. Your thoughts have challenged me in many ways. I do want to ask if you might reconsider using a Psalm 51 as part of your argument that Yahweh never desired animal sacrifices. You stated:
“God is not delighted with sacrifices and offerings, says the Psalmist, but with a broken and contrite spirit (Psalm 51:16-17).”
If one keeps reading down to verse 18 and 19 we discover…
“Certainly you do not want a sacrifice, or else I would offer it; you do not desire a burnt sacrifice. The sacrifices God desires are a humble spirit –
O God, a humble and repentant heart you will not reject. Because you favor Zion, do what is good for her! Fortify the walls of Jerusalem!
Then you will accept the proper sacrifices, burnt sacrifices and whole offerings;
then bulls will be sacrificed on your altar.”- Psalm 51:16-19
Do you agree that verse 19 does not support your argument? Thank you for your response.
All I can say is WOW!! I left the church system 20 years ago. Now finding my way back to the real Jesus and Father God. I have always believed what you said above the God seemed schizophrenic when I read the Bible!! thanks so much for this teaching!!
God did require animal sacrifice in the Old testament,so that is utterly false,Your verses against animal sacrifice were showing that those rituals alone were not what it was all about ,but genuine repentance and stoppin g the sinning.It had gotten to the point like the catholic church of yesterday especially , that folks did the rituals then went out and sinned again and again,that is why those sacrifices were not accepted.Jesus death on the cross was a absolute must,there was no other way for the forgiveness of sins for a eternity with God almighty.Teaching wrong theology has terrible consquences so one must be as careful as possible.thanks
“The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” John 1:29
Trying to work through what I have always been taught about the Gospel and thought I knew about the Cross and came across this article. Not sure I agree with it entirely, but I appreciate the effort put in to it and all the great discussion going on as well. Thanks for uploading (8 years later!).
Thank you.i find this article interesting as I continue to contemplate on similar lines. Jesus in Matthew’s gospel mentioned Hosea 6 God desiring mercy not sacrifice. 🙏
I think you might be a bit off here. I agree about much of what you are saying however, for one, Jesus and an innocent person are two very different people. Jesus was perfect, people aren’t. Two, God was never mad at us even tho many bible translations make it sound like that. God was mad at sin because sin destroys the people He created in His image and He loves. In fact sin disfigures and makes us into what we were never meant to be. Sin is and was the enemy… not us. Sin has destroyed millions during the holocaust. The old law could not change that. Sin still reigned. Jesus, the perfect lamb, CHOSE to carry all sin to the cross so it loses its power in us. Again, His wrath was never toward us. That is ridiculous. Why would He create us KNOWING we’d make that choice, then rage at us for making it? He KNEW we’d make it from the beginning which is why Jesus has always been with the Father. Calvinistic type teaching says we are as insignificant as worms… but do you really think Jesus would die for worms? Again, we are of such high value to God that He would have done anything for us. He knew we as humans created in His image HAD to have the ability to choose. Because He created us to be fully like Him and did not create us to be puppets. Anyway, I think you get the idea….
God the Father is an infinitely intelligent and didactic supreme being. He is not “out to get us.” That is why He allows us to learn from our mistakes (i.e., sin) and sent Jesus, His only Son, as our Savior. But, in order to be just, God must be fair. Therefore, all sin must be atoned for, which supports the Catholic Church’s concept of Purgatory. If everyone was not held accountable for their sins, God could not bring satan to justice (as described by John in Revelation). Only Jesus has the authority to judge the living and the dead (Apostles Creed). Thus, in order to be saved, one must trust in Jesus as our Lord and Savior, obey His Commandments, and be faithful to the tenents of the Church he founded through His Apostle Peter (Mathew 16: 18-19); the same Catholic Church mentioned by St. Ignatius in the historical record dating back to AD 107.
LOVE JESUS ALWAYS!
Interesting reading. I do believe animal sacrifice was a pagan idea, nothing unique in ancient Judaism.
God sent his son to the world as a human being so we emulate Him in His way of Love and Truth. It may sound threatening to many that God wants to be like Him. We become God! Scary .. On the flip side it is very easy we make this external theistic god in charge of everything and let him be in charge and we do not have to carry any responsibility.
Thanks