Photo by il vano on Unsplash
Jesus didn't die on the cross for your sins...There, I said it. It has become commonplace that when I write about my belief that the cross is not about substitutionary atonement or Jesus not physically resurrected from the dead, the fundamentalist police come after me. Instead of dancing around the issue, I will immediately lay my cards on the table.
Jesus didn't die on the cross for your sins...There, I said it. It has become commonplace that when I write about my belief that the cross is not about substitutionary atonement or Jesus not physically resurrected from the dead, the fundamentalist police come after me. Instead of dancing around the issue, I will immediately lay my cards on the table.
Let me be clear before I start getting comments asking, "How can you call yourself a Christian?" I believe the cross of Christ has immense power and significance. If anything, I feel my position on the meaning of Jesus's crucifixion has greater meaning and importance than Jesus serving as a substitute for my screw-ups.
I recognize that all varieties of Christians within Protestantism have been taught that the purpose of Jesus's death on the cross is to pay for our sins. For most of us who were trained to evangelize and save our lost friends and relatives, we often were taught to start our gospel presentation with, "We all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23). You have to start with the bad news so people fully understand the good news about Jesus, right?!
I recognize that all varieties of Christians within Protestantism have been taught that the purpose of Jesus's death on the cross is to pay for our sins. For most of us who were trained to evangelize and save our lost friends and relatives, we often were taught to start our gospel presentation with, "We all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23). You have to start with the bad news so people fully understand the good news about Jesus, right?!
Many church disciplines are even taught to be practiced from the perspective of how sinful we are and how much we need to be saved. Why memorize scripture? So you can have a way to fight off your sinful thoughts, of course. When you pray, confess your sin because you most definitely sinned it up since you last prayed. Share your faith because everyone around you is a sinner doomed to hell if they don't accept Jesus died on the cross for their sins. Does any of this sound familiar? I'm not going to lie; I feel cringy and am clenching my teeth as I write this.
For anyone that I've triggered, I'm genuinely sorry. The point I'm making is sin and being sinful is thrown in our faces so often by popular Christianity that it's impossible to consider that Jesus's crucifixion was for any other reason than to forgive how horrible and rebellious you and I are in the eyes of God.
To Understand Substitutionary Atonement, We Have to Start with Anselm of Canterbury
To understand the origin of substitutionary atonement, we must travel to 11th-century England instead of first-century Palestine. New Testament scholar Marcus Borg explains why we can't start in the time and place of Jesus's crucifixion;
"A major historical problem that negates the notion that Jesus's death as payment for sin is the only correct understanding is this: it is not central to the first thousand years of Christian beliefs. In the New Testament, it is at most a minor metaphor, and some scholars argue that it is not there at all." (Convictions: How I Learned What Matters Most, p. 135)
The idea of substitutionary atonement wasn't fully fleshed out until 1098 CE when a saint named Anselm, an abbot, monk, priest, and archbishop of Canterbury, introduced it. The justification for Jesus's death as substitutionary was articulated in his work Cur Deus Homo (Why God Became Human). Once more, Marcus Borg explains how Anselm used the feudal system of his day to shape his model:
"He used a model from his cultural-historical context, namely, the relationship between a feudal lord and his subjects. When a subject violated the lord's law, could the lord simply forgive if he wanted to? To do so would promote anarchy by suggesting that disobedience wasn't very serious. Instead, payment, satisfaction, and compensation must be made. The honor of the lord and the order of his law must be preserved.” (Convictions: How Learned What Matters Most, p. 135)
In Anselm's mind, God's forgiveness implied that sin doesn't matter much to God. If a Lord requires payment for a law being violated, so must God require payment for sin. This payment came in the form of Jesus's crucifixion.
One of the best ways we can confirm that substitutionary atonement was an 11th-century creation is because this view of the meaning of the cross is not held within Eastern Christianity. Up until the 11th century, there was only one Christian church. Then, in 1054 CE (44 years before Anselm developed substitutionary atonement), the Church split into the Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox) Churches. This event is known as The Great Schism. As a Western theologian, Anselm's ideas never existed in Eastern Christianity.
The logical question is: If substitutionary atonement isn't in the Bible and wasn't created until the 11th century by Anselm of Canterbury, why does Jesus's crucifixion matter today? Great question; Jesus's crucifixion matters primarily on political and religious levels.
The Political and Religious Significance of Jesus's Death on a Cross
Political Meaning
Politically, Rome only used crucifixion for two types of criminals.
- Rebellious slaves
- Political threats.
We know Jesus was not enslaved, so Pilate saw him as a political threat to Rome. For Rome, crucifixion was an act of state terrorism meant to deter anyone who would consider challenging imperial authority.
Jesus was a political threat because his teaching ran contrary to Roman values. In Rome, one obtains peace through victory, which means the use of violence. With Jesus, peace comes through justice, which means people are treated equitably and everyone's needs are cared for. We also know Rome took exception to Jesus’s non-violence because they only crucified him. Had Rome thought Jesus was stirring up a violent rebellion, Jesus and all twelve apostles would’ve been crucified. In Rome’s eyes, Jesus’s teaching was threatening. Therefore, chop off the head and the followers will scatter, problem solved. From Rome’s perspective, Jesus was the perfect example of how violence brings peace.
The heart of Jesus's message and activity around the coming of "the kingdom of God" specifically challenged Rome's authority. For some, it may come as a surprise that Jesus's message was centered on the coming "kingdom of God" and not eternal life or Jesus dying so sins can be forgiven. It's also worth stating the "kingdom of God" is not about an afterlife or how to get to heaven. The "kingdom of God" is about transforming life in the here and now on this little rock we call Earth.
If you want to learn more about this contrast between Jesus and Rome, I highly recommend "God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now" by John Dominic Crossan.
Emphasizing Jesus's crucifixion historically does not negate it as a self-sacrificing love story. However, because the state executed Jesus, the cross adds a political dimension. If Jesus didn't die on the cross, would his story be the same? No, it would be a different story.
In far better words than I can offer, Marcus Borg explains the power of Jesus's death being on a cross:
"the fact that Jesus was crucified by the authorities who ruled his world gives his story a meaning that it would not otherwise have. By executing him, the powers that ruled his world said, 'no' to what he was doing. They rejected his passion for God and the kingdom of God. It also affects the meaning of Easter: it is God's 'yes' to Jesus and his passion for the kingdom of God, and God's 'no' to the powers that killed him. Good Friday and Easter have a political meaning, even as they also have a more-than-political meaning." (Convictions: How Learned What Matters Most, p. 138)
By more-than-political meaning, Borg refers to the religious meaning of the cross, which we'll discuss next.
Religious Meaning
Religiously, the cross is preeminently a symbol of the path of personal transformation. It is also corporately the symbol of confrontation with the domination systems that rule the world. The power of the cross is both political and religious.
Personally, it is the model for how we experience personal transformation: death to an old self and rebirth to a new self—texts like Galatians 2:20 advocate this. Politically, Jesus's death and resurrection are God's affirmation of Jesus's way of finding peace through justice and God's rejection of the world's finding peace through victory and violence.
The political and religious meanings of Jesus's crucifixion have shaped my atonement view of Participatory atonement. This view holds that Jesus's crucifixion is the ultimate model of personal transformation in following Jesus's path. In this view, we die and rise with Christ. It is metaphorical language that describes the internal process of radical change.
The cross of Christ is the heart of Christianity, understood in its political and religious context. When we emphasize Jesus's death as any substitutionary atonement, we lose the larger religious and political context. Furthermore, we implicitly add barriers that negate the grace of God. In a substitutionary view of the cross, to receive Jesus's forgiveness, we must believe the right things about Jesus, say the proper prayer, hold to the correct theology, etc. Ironically, all the barriers we impose go against what Jesus calls us to.
Jesus tells us to follow him because he is the way. The Path of Jesus is a universal path guiding us from death to an old life, to rebirth in a new life, not at some point in the distant future but right now, today on this earth. The opportunity to follow Jesus is always present and available. There are no barriers because the grace of God has already removed all of them, not Jesus’s death on the cross.
_______________________
Thanks for stopping by and reading this article! If my work has served you or you want to contribute to creating authentic faith connections, consider becoming an Authentic Faith Advocate.
Thanks for stopping by and reading this article! If my work has served you or you want to contribute to creating authentic faith connections, consider becoming an Authentic Faith Advocate.