Jesus did not have to die
Posted by Jordan on April 11, 2009
Today is Good Friday, the day we remember the crucifixion of Jesus. I’ve come to see the death of Jesus not as something God required, but rather as a result of Jesus living a faithful life.
Jesus died because he opposed evil and identified with the margins of society. Jesus did not die to appease an angry God.
So should we call today Good Friday? I think not, there is nothing good about an unnecessary death.
Kate Rickard said
J,
Intriguing thoughts. I resonate with your desire to move away from an brand of atonement theology that seeks to claim Jesus death was an appeasement of an angry God. We see far more of a parent’s love depicted in the scriptures than we see a God desiring a transaction of human blood sacrifice for salvation. While that transaction imagery is there, I do believe a shepherd or a friend laying down their life in protection of and care for those whom they love is a far more compelling and authentic image.
I also agree with you that Jesus’ death was a result of his faithful life. His prayers in the garden the night before he was betrayed come to mind where he asked that “this cup” be taken from him. When it became clear that it would not, he submitted to the will of the Father and followed up his prayers with, “not my will but yours be done.”
I struggle a bit with seeing Jesus only as a victim of the social injustice dealt by his oppressors. I don’t want to miss that Jesus’ death was also his choice on our behalf. Consider Pilate’s ironic words in John 19: “Do you not realize that I have the power to either free you or crucify you?” and Jesus’ response: “You would have no power over me if it were not given from above.” Jesus corrects Pilate, pointing out that he is subject to no human authority but rather to the will of God. And the will, or the heart of God, is that God in Christ must die.
I think a lot about Jesus’ death and after my whole life of being in the church, it still remains a mystery. And I am more than ok with that. But I do know that not only did those humans who condemned and crucified him desire Christ’s death, but God in Christ chose it also.
Perhaps the difference between the words “desired” and “required” gets at what I am thinking about. Did God require Jesus’ death? I do not believe God required Christ’s death any more than God was required to bring this world into existence.
But God chose to and was compelled to out of love for the beautiful potential and brokenness of God’s children (thanks to Mother Melissa for those images). In her sermon last night, Melissa suggested that God was compelled to die because God wanted God’s children to know that there was no hell we would visit in this world or the next, that God has not also visited.
It is in this identification with us in our death, the death that all humans experience, that God is able to show once and for all that death (loosely speaking – both the death of relationships, personal failures and our mortality) is not something we venture into alone. Nor does it have the final say.
Anyway, thanks for your post and for helping me think about Christ’s death this Holy Triduum. I am amazed at how many ways we can reflect on and find new life in the Passion of our Lord.
Kate
steve said
What a thought provoking post, Jordan – and what an inspirational reply Kate! When I first read the post I was torn because the death of Christ is so centrally important to our faith… not to mention that there would be no resurrection without a death. But after reading Kate’s reply I can see that where I was worried was not where the post was going. There is a big difference between God’s choice and God’s necessary action…
Phil said
I’m a couple months late here.
I too find this idea–that Jesus’ death appeased God’s wrath–an idea at odds with the character of God revealed in the Christian tradition. God has no need for vengeance, at the end of the day; all hardshop God inflicts is purgative, not punitive. But that’s not the only picture according to which Christ’s death accomplishes something on our behalf, something that we need and that we can’t provide for ourselves. I’m not sure that this other, more nuanced vicariousness isn’t there already in the OT sacrificial system–this is something I’ve been meaning to explore. (That is, I’m not sure that the sacrificial system is about substitutionary punishment, either, though it looks like it is on the surface.) Currently, I’ve been understanding Christ’s death in rough analogy to a quarantine: as a virus dies with a quarantined infected host, so evil dies with Christ. (The nature of the vicarious act is much richer than that for me, but it’s the best I can do in a sentence.)
Spong titles one of his chapters “Jesus as Rescuer: An Image that Has Got to Go.” As I see it, Jesus-as-rescuer is the heart of the Gospel; there’s something that Jesus accomplishes on our behalf that we can’t accomplish on our own. (It’s that whole “for us and for our salvation…” bit.) This doesn’t imply that dying-on-a-cross-in-27-AD is the only way God could have acted on our behalf. But it does suggest that had Christ not died on the cross–or done something that accomplished the same ends for us–we’d be up a creek w/out a paddle.