How Does “Dying For Our Sins” Work?

grunewaldchrist1

How Does “Dying For Our Sins” Work?
Brian Zahnd

When we say “Jesus died for our sins,” what does that mean? It’s undeniably an essential confession of Christian faith, but how does it work? This much I’m sure of, it’s not reducible to just one thing. I’ve just finished preaching eight sermons on “The Crucified God” and I know I’ve barely scratched the surface of what the cross means. To try to reduce the death of Jesus to a single meaning is an impoverished approach to the mystery of the cross. I’m especially talking about those tidy explanations of the cross known as “atonement theories.” I find most of them inadequate; others I find repellent. Particularly abhorrent are those theories that portray the Father of Jesus as a pagan deity who can only be placated by the barbarism of child sacrifice. The god who is mollified by throwing a virgin into a volcano or by nailing his son to a tree is not the Abba of Jesus!

Neither is the death of Jesus a kind of quid pro quo by which God gains the necessary capital to forgive sinners. No! Jesus does not save us from God; Jesus reveals God! Jesus does not provide God with the capacity to forgive; Jesus reveals God as forgiving love. An “economic model” of the cross just won’t work. It’s not as if God is saying, “Look, I’d love to forgive you, but I’ve got to pay off Justice first, and, you know how she is, she’s a tough goddess, she requires due payment.” This understanding of the cross begs the question of who exactly is in charge — the Father of Jesus or some abstract ideal called “Justice”?

When we confess with Paul that “Christ died for our sins,” we don’t mean that God required the vicious murder of his Son in order to forgive. How would that work anyway? Did God have some scale of torture that once met would “satisfy his wrath?” Think it through and you’ll see the problem. Was death not enough to satisfy this god? Did it have to be death by crucifixion? Did torture have to be part of the equation? And how does that work? Was there a minimum number of lashes required in the scourging? Did the thorny crown have to have a certain number of thorns in order for this god to call the scales balanced?

Are you squirming yet? Do you want to say, “Well, some of the abuse Jesus suffered was gratuitous torture by the hands of cruel men.” But if that’s the case, how does this division of labor work? How much was necessary to “satisfy God” and how much was just for the sport of it? No, this approach to understanding Jesus dying for our sins clearly won’t work.

So what do we do? Let’s begin here: Before the cross is anything else, it is a catastrophe. It is the unjust lynching of an innocent man. This is precisely how the Apostles spoke of the crucifixion of Jesus in the book of Acts.

“This Jesus…you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” –Acts 2:23

You killed the author of life, whom God raised from the dead.” –Acts 3:15

“God raised up Jesus whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.” –Acts 5:30

“The Righteous One you have now betrayed and murdered.” –Acts 7:52

The Bible is clear, God did not kill Jesus. Jesus was offered as a sacrifice in that the Father was willing to send his Son into our sinful system in order to expose it as utterly sinful and provide us with another way. The death of Jesus was a sacrifice in that sense. But it was not a sacrifice to appease a wrathful deity or to provide payment for a penultimate god subordinate to Justice.

Let me suggest that when we say Jesus died for our sins, we mean something like this: We violently sinned our sins into Jesus, and Jesus revealed the heart of God by forgiving us. When Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them,” he was not asking God to act contrary to his nature. When Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them,” he was, as always, revealing the very heart of God!

At the cross we violently sinned our sins into Jesus, and Jesus absorbed them, died because of them, carried them into death, and rose on the third day to speak the first world of the new world: “Peace be with you.”

When I say “we” violently sinned our sins into Jesus, I mean that all of us are more or less implicated by our explicit or tacit support of the systems of violent power that frame our world. These are the very political and religious systems that executed Jesus. At the cross we see where Adam and Eve’s penchant for blame and Cain’s capacity for killing have led us — to the murder of God! At Golgotha human sin is seen as utterly sinful. God did not require the death of Jesus — but we did!

So let’s be clear, the cross is not about the appeasement of a monster god. The cross is about the revelation of a merciful God. At the cross we discover a God who would rather die than kill his enemies. The cross is where God in Christ absorbs sin and recycles it into forgiveness. The cross is not what God inflicts upon Christ in order to forgive. The cross is what God endures in Christ as he forgives. Once we understand this, we know what we are seeing when we look at the cross: We are seeing the lengths to which a God of love will go in forgiving sin.

The cross is both ugly and beautiful. It’s as ugly as human sin and as beautiful as divine love. But in the end, love and beauty win.

BZ

The artwork is The Crucifixion (1515) by Grünewald Matthias.

  • No where in the Bible does it say to be righteous means to punish others. Nor does it say God’s intention in Christ’s incarnation and mission was to placate his wrath or anger or some idea of ‘justice.’ It says “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son…” The motivating factor is love, nothing else. Love (as per the bible) is forbearance and forgiveness – and forgiveness must come from the heart, it cannot be bought. God forgave us because it was his desire and intention to do so, not any monstrous pagan theology.

  • Brother John

    Brian Zahnd, are you familiar with Dr. Paul Peter Waldenstrom’s view of the atonement? His relatively brief book, “Be Ye Reconciled To God” really helped me to understand the atonement so much more clearly (and powerfully!) than the penal sub view I had always been taught. I’m not sure if links are allowed here, but you can just do an internet search for Waldenstrom atonement and you can find the book online.

  • planet8788

    FTA: At the cross we violently sinned our sins into Jesus, and Jesus absorbed them, died because of them, carried them into death, and rose on the third day to speak the first world of the new world:“Peace be with you.”

    That’s still atonement.

  • planet8788

    And it was Adam, though the scripture doesn’t spell it out, who probably ate of the fruit after Eve, So Eve wouldn’t bear judgement alone.

  • planet8788

    He died. He paid the price. That’s all that was necessary. And then he rose again and defeated Death.

  • planet8788

    But why did Jesus have to day if all that was necessary was forgiveness? You can’t seperate them. They are together.

  • planet8788

    Death. Not eternal death.

  • Pingback: Teodiceia III | Dear Sir, I am.

  • Ian Mills

    I agree with your rejection of PSA but working exclusively with quotes from Acts isn’t very persuasive. Most informed PSA advocates would gladly concede that Acts lacks the Pauline penal and economic soteriology… a convincing case against PSA needs to deal with Romans and the Johanine epistles. Might I recommend Henk Versnel’s “Making Sense of Jesus’ Death” (available free online) as a scholarly non-PSA treatment of violent atonement language in Paul.

  • Aaron McGuire

    Hi Brian, I think it’s important to remember, too, that these models of atonement you’ve referred to must have been alive with meaning and immediacy to people of those times (from the time of Gregory of Nyssa and Origen to Augustine to Anselm and Abelard to Luther to Charles Hodge to Aulen to now!). Atonement models over time use language and metaphor that make sense within those historical/socio-cultural/political/economic contexts. The problem, I think, is not necessarily with the model, but that we no longer find utility, immediacy, or meaning in these models because their language and imagery no longer ring with truth. In the same way, I think the language people use today to make alive again the mysterious meanings of atonement will one day lose their immediacy and relevance as the world changes.

    So, I’d suggest instead of dismissing old models and images as morally repugnant, it would be better to admit that even todays models, images, and symbolical frameworks will probably one day need to change, as they may one day appear morally repugnant at worst, or irrelevant unable resonate meaningfully with people at best.

    There’s more I’d like to say, but I just wanted to offer this point. Good article.

  • cristine

    wow and exactly and thank you.

  • Pingback: Old Debate, New Day: Calvinism – My Thoughts | Lucas Hattenberger

  • Verity

    amazing and beautiful article

  • Pingback: How Does "Dying For Our Sins" Work? | Brian Zahnd - Contemplative Theology : Contemplative Theology

  • Wonder

    God can’t?
    God had to?

    What sort of a paltry deity is that?

  • Anon.

    What is the wrath of God from John 3:36? I do believe that His wrath is a facet of his love. It doesn’t mean He is a “wrathfully deity”, but it is wrath all the same. And what about Romans 5:1? What does it mean to be justified? I’m not being rhetorical, I am really asking.

  • George Norman Lippert

    Hi Pastor Zahnd,

    The mistake you are making (if I may be so bold and you are open to consider it) is in groping for understanding using your intellect alone.

    Where does the actual Bible come into play here? Are there not dozens upon dozens of verses that explain, in no uncertain terms, that Jesus paid for our sins with his blood?

    By disregarding those passages, you’ve been forced to rely only on your own intellect to make sense of the cross, and come up short and apparently frustrated. Understandably.

    However, if you do choose to go this route, I’d submit that the onus is on you to explain why it had to happen at all. Surely you’ve considered the following:

    Jesus predicted his death. When Peter warned him away from it, Jesus rebuked him as Satan.

    When the time came, Jesus asked his father to take the cup (responsibility) from him. “Not my will but yours be done.” He knew it was God’s plan and went to it, despite his human fear.

    These things imply– even more, they demand– that Jesus not only knew the cross was coming, but knew it was his purpose, and God’s will.

    If one believes the Bible at all, this is undeniable: Jesus went to the cross willingly, despite his fears, because it was “God’s cup” for him.

    People killed Jesus, but God allowed it for his purposes.

    So. If Jesus’ death on the cross was *not* (as the Bible repeatedly explains) a substitutionary payment by the only perfect human for all of imperfect humanity…

    Then why did God will and allow it?

    If the cross was not the only way for God to build a bridge to us, to satisfy his absolute righteousness, what possible purpose could it serve?

    Let me be blunt: if you are suggesting that God allowed his son to be tortured and killed *for anything less* than the sole salvation of us lost sinners, then that truly is a monster God, worthy of no devotion.

    If your God sent his son to die as some sort of object lesson or symbol or just because he didn’t want to stop those unruly murderous humans, then truly, he is not a god worth following.

    Forget measuring the thorns or the lashings or the drops of blood. Your intellect has reduced you to attempting spiritual calculus by counting your fingers and toes. The real tragedy (and dubious logic) is in suggesting the cross happened for *any other reason* than to satisfy God’s righteousness and grant us Jesus’ perfection.

    I’m sure you have an answer, and I see why it required weeks of sermons. But it will all boil down to the same thing. With respect, if your god made his son “drink the cup” of the cross for any other reason than to pay for the sins of all, then yours is the monster god, the helpless god, the capricious god, and I reject him utterly.

  • George Norman Lippert

    Chapter and verse for this?

    All I can think of is “the wages of sin is death”. Is that not God’s law?

    Philosophically, how can God possibly be righteous if sin has no consequence in his presence?

  • Merritt E. Spencer

    You just quoted a verse that describes the consequences of sin. It is death, not eternal life in pain. Sin has consequences. It is death, spiritual death, death of the soul. Ezekiel says the soul that sins, it shall die.

  • george norman lippert

    I’m confused. Above you said that it’s a man-made rule that sin must be punished. But now you seem to agree that it is God’s law that the wages of sin is death (we won’t quibble about what *kind* of death).

    Both things can’t be true, can they? That sin doesn’t require punishment AND that God’s law decrees death as the wage of sin. So help me out here?

    I mean, I hate to sound condescending, but the overarching premise– that sin is no biggie for God and he can just dismiss it like a library fine– seems so ridiculous and untenable as to be laughable. And yet Pastor Zhand (and a lot of you) seem to take it completely seriously.

  • Merritt E. Spencer

    I did not say there was no consequences to sin when I said it is a man made idea that God does not have the power to forgive and show mercy and must punish sin. It seems laughable to me that you would think the Creator lacked that power. Our being gifted with eternal life at the discretion of our Creator is the only way we can receive eternal life since I think we both agree we cannot earn it or deserve it. There is only one kind of death–absence of life, but there are two kinds of life, physical life and spiritual life.

  • george norman lippert

    Wow, this is getting complicated.

    I’ll cut to the chase. It’s silly to use God’s omnipotence as a catch all for whatever doctrine you want to throw at the wall. There *are*, in fact, things God cannot do, and they all boil down to this: God cannot defy his own nature. He cannot break his own laws.

    It’s intellectually empty to say “if God wants to just forgive sins, he can, because he’s God.”

    If God can break his own rules, he isn’t God, and is therefore not worth following. If God’s righteousness demands cleansing for sin, then cleansing must happen. If cleansing requires death (those persky wages of sin) then death is required. Call it some sort of metaphysical death all you want, it’s still a death, and it’s still required.

    If Jesus didn’t have to serve as that death in our place, then why did he go to the cross at all?

    It’s not a monster God that sacrifices his own son to save us all. It’s a monster god that let’s his son be tortured and killed for any *lesser* reason.

    If I had to believe that God could break his own laws and forgive just because he wanted to, I’d abandon that god as weak and dishonest (and he’d forgive me anyway, because why not?)

    If I had to believe that God would send his own son to be tortured and killed by humanity for some other reason than to save us all, *that* would be a pathetic, manipulative, small god that I could not respect or follow either.

    Strong words, but Zhand makes strong claims (and you do, too). In short, I reject your god utterly. He’s useless. He’s not the God of the Bible.

  • Merritt E. Spencer

    I see nothing in the bible that says God cannot do evil. In fact it says God can do evil. I don’t believe that God will do evil, but I disagree with your view that God cannot do evil. Being able to break His own rules does not mean God is not God. In fact God being able to be unloving is the very thing that allows God to be loving. Love is a choice, not just for us but also for God. It is not intellectually empty to believe God has the power to be merciful and forgive us of our sins. In short I reject your god utterly, a robot unable to deviate from his computer programming.

  • http://randystarkey.com/ Randy Starkey

    George – Great post. I have just finished reading Is. 53 in the Message Bible. Incredible translation. Really mirrors your post and PSA thought in general. Plus it’s a very good rendering of the Hebrew thoughts. I know Brian respects Eugene Peterson, the author. I’d encourage him to reread this translation.

  • Pingback: Jesus Died For Our Sins: A Review of the Brian Zahnd Approach | Laodecia Press