Skip to main content

Did Jesus Die to Save Us From God?

Why did Jesus have to die? Was it to appease a wrathful God's demand for punishment? Does that mean Jesus died to save us from God? How could someone ever truly love or trust a God like that? How can that ever be called "Good News?" It's questions like these that make so many people want to have nothing to do with Christianity.
Countless people filling our pews have adopted this hurtful view of God and themselves. It has led many to internalize feelings of shame and self-loathing, thinking this is what God desires. Others have lost their faith entirely because of it, unable to worship a God who seems to them to be a moral monster. Faith motivated by fear, threat, and feelings of worthlessness. How could things have gone so wrong? When did the good news become bad news?
Behind all of this lies an understanding of the cross rooted in retributive justice known as penal substitution. Simply put: in this theory of the atonement Jesus is punished (penal) instead of us (substitution). Penal substitution is, without question, the most widespread theory of the atonement today. So much so, that many people do not think of it as a theory at all, but simply as "what the Bible says."
Consequently, in an effort to be true to the teachings of the Bible, many Christians struggle to believe in penal substitution, even though it seems wrong and hurtful to them. We hate it, but think this is what God wants us to believe.

In my new book Healing the Gospel: A Radical Vision for Grace, Justice, and the Cross I propose an alternative: The book takes a deep look at Scripture and makes the case that the above view is neither representative of Jesus and his teachings, nor is it reflective of the New Testament. Rather, it is the result of people projecting their worldly understanding of punitive justice onto the biblical text.

It wasn't always that way of course. For the first thousand years, the work of Christ was understood primarily in terms of God's act of healing people, and liberating them from the bonds of sin and death. This understanding of the atonement is known as Christus Victor. But gradually there was a shift towards a legal focus, and with it a focus on violent punishment. The message was flipped on it's head: instead of the crucifixion being seen as an act of grave injustice (as it is portrayed in all four Gospels), there was a shift towards the claim that God had demanded the death of Jesus to quench his anger. Not coincidentally, this coincided with increased violence perpetrated by the church, and it went downhill from there.
Here's a simple rule of thumb: if your theory of the cross completely contradicts everything Jesus stood for and taught... it's probably wrong. It's sad that I need to say this, but the gospel is rooted in love of enemies, not in retribution. Retribution is the opposite of forgiveness. So the idea that the entire work of Jesus was to fulfill the demands of retribution is simply absurd. It's high time we went back to the focus of Jesus, which was not on violent demands for so-called justice, but on restoring broken lives, and showing enemy love. That's what the cross is really about.
However, centuries of reading the assumptions of punitive justice into the Bible wont be easy for us to shake off. It's become so ingrained, so indoctrinated into our religious imagination that it seems almost self-evident to us now. Therefore, we will need to take a fresh look at Scripture in order to recognize that the model of restorative justice is indeed at the heart of the biblical narrative.
That is, of course, a task far too big for a single blog post, but one I take on in detail in Healing the Gospel. The book challenges the assumption that the Christian understanding of justice is rooted in a demand for violent punishment, and instead offers a radically different understanding of the gospel based on God's restorative justice -- showing how we have projected our cultural assumptions of punitive justice onto the Bible, and digging in deep to uncover a radical vision of the gospel that exposes violence, rather than supporting it.
Because Healing the Gospel takes on such a major doctrine, it is sure to ruffle some feathers. But I don't really care. I'm not writing for those people anyway. I'm writing for the many people who have been hurt by this doctrine, and who want to find a better way.
To them I say: You don't need to accept an understanding of the cross that seems hurtful and unjust because "the Bible says so" because guess what? the Bible doesn't say this at all. You don't have to adopt a schizophrenic view that pits God against Jesus. You don't need to accept a doctrine that flies in the face of the grace and love you have experienced. There is a better way: one that is both fully in line with the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament, and at the same time grace-focused and life-giving. That really is good news.


Popular posts from this blog

If Jesus did not die upon the cross: A study in evidence

The Last Supper This is a small booklet with a very descriptive title, written by an Australian Judge, Ernest Brougham Docker, in 1920. He became a judge of the District Court and chairman of Quarter Sessions for the north-western district in 1881. He retired in 1918 after the passage of the Judges Retirement Act.
He examines the limitations in the so called testimony of the apostles about resurrection in his book. He makes several strong points against resurrection of Jesus, may peace be on him, but one that can be described in a few lines is quoted here:
“He (Jesus) expressed his forebodings to His disciples, I firmly believe; I am equally convinced that He did not predict His rising again. The Conduct of the disciples after crucifixion shows that they had no expectation of a resurrection; and it is altogether incredible that they could have forgotten a prediction so remarkable.”
There are 14 parts of this short booklet by Ernest Brougham Docker, published in 1920. The fifth part concl…

Aloe and Myrrh: modern day analysis of two ancient herbs

By Arif Khan .. Edited by Jonathan Ghaffar
Aloe and Myrrh are mentioned in the Gospel as being present immediately after the body of Hadhrat Isa (Jesus) was tended to by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea; the presence of these medicinal plants has often been explained by Christian scholars as being part of an embalming process, whereas Hadhrat Masih Ma’ud (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) in his treatise “Masih Hindustan Mein” (“Jesus in India”) described how they were essential ingredients for an ointment applied to Jesus’ wounds. What role do these herbs play today? Can an exploration of their modern day uses throw light on possible events 2000 years ago?The mention of the herbs appears in the Crucifixion story as it is recorded in the Gospel of John:

وفات مسیح پر حضرت ابن عباس ؓ کا عقیدہ

سیدناحضرت ابن عباس رضی اللہ تعالیٰ عنہ سورۃآل عمران کی  آیت نمبر ۵۶

کا ترجمہ کرتے ہوئے فرماتے ہیں ۔ مُمِیْتُکَ ۔یعنی مُتَوَفِّیْکَ کا مطلب ہے میں تجھے موت دینے والا ہوں ۔