Why did God torture and kill Jesus?

When I lived in Kyrgyzstan for the Peace Corps, I was invited by my host family to help them slaughter two sheep for an upcoming wedding feast. I have seen many dead animals, killed some myself, and have helped field dress large game. I have no ethical problem with killing animals for food. So I accepted the offer to help slaughter the sheep and even volunteered my sharp hunting knife after seeing the dull knives they had on hand.

My host-brother said a small prayer and slit the sheep’s throats. I will spare you the gory details. But there was suffering and pain and death. And even for a farm animal whose destiny was such, that isn't benign. Sacrifices aren't benign, even as we steel ourselves from their violence.

Yet it’s this exact violence that holds the center of the Christian religion. Walk into churches across the world and you will find the cross or crucifix on the walls – an instrument of torture and violence, albeit re-appropriated as a symbol of hope. But where does this hope come from?

(Prepare yourself – here comes some mind-numbing history about theology for a paragraph.)

Modern soteriology (big fancy word for the study of salvation) has largely focused on the notion of “penal substitutionary atonement,” a theology brought about by the Protestant Reformers in the 16^th century that really builds on the Renaissance’s ideals of law and justice. According to this theory, God’s divine law requires a penalty for mankind’s infinite sin – a requirement that is unable to be breached even by the mercy of God. However, according to God’s mercy, in this soteriology, an innocent Jesus is offered as the ultimate surrogate, taking the penalty for all of human sin. It’s the standard idea most anyone has been told if they have ever heard anyone talk about Jesus and salvation.

Crazy thing is, though, it is relatively new. Other soteriologies, all of which are based on the Bible (including the one currently in vogue), have been around for much longer and were simply supplanted by Calvin’s substitutionary idea. (For the curious, some others include ransom, moral, and satisfaction atonement.) They were replaced because they had problems and newer, better ideas came forward that made sense within the framework of that particular period of time they were needed. They might have grains of truth to them, but they aren't universal, timeless truths. They arose from a context and as our modern context has become incredibly different from Calvin’s, we see problems the creators of such theories might not have foreseen. So we search for new ways to make sense of the story of Jesus.

But why do we need new ways to make sense of Jesus? Is the violence of the crucifixion problematic? Well, yes. I wouldn't be writing otherwise. But it’s not necessarily because of its violence (you can’t really whitewash a crucifixion, after all).

It’s because we make it necessary. And because we admire it. And we glorify it.

There is a better path. Let’s take a look.

PROBLEMS

1.      God killed Jesus.
I often hear laypeople and conservative clergy voice this idea that God planned the crucifixion and resurrection since the beginning of time to redeem us, his sinful creation. In effect, God has one of his children tortured and killed to show love. If any of us, as parents planned something similar for our children, we would rightly be deemed unfit parents, at the very least – perhaps even going so far as to be morally evil.

Secondly, the Bible alludes to the innocence of Jesus thus making his trial, torture, and death even more an injustice and scandal. But then we must also conclude that this injustice was actually the will and predestined plan of God? So not only did God ordain the torture and death of his son, but he ordained it be done through unjust circumstances – essentially making the vehicle for his will being done to be unjust and immoral. (Can we even go so far as to say sinful?; Isn't it sinful to kill an innocent man without a fair trial?)

How does that work? It doesn't. In my opinion, and many other theologians, there is a better way to understand the torture and death of Jesus that doesn't position God as the architect of his death, yet maintains God as the merciful redeemer reconciling humanity back to him through Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

2.      Sacrifice is legitimate.
If Jesus had not been killed, would we still be sacrificing farm animals and bushels of grain? Do we really think God requires some kind of blood sacrifice in order to forgive us? How is an all-powerful God bound to this constructed requirement (ironically one that is found consistently throughout MANY world religions)? If Jesus hadn't upped the ante to be the final sacrifice for all, would we still be asking God’s forgiveness with burnt animals?

Virtually every modern Christian thinks of himself/herself as being “above” the primitive religions of history that made sacrifices to secure safe travels or good crops or health or fertility. We somehow see ourselves as intellectually evolved and as having progressed past that primitive idea of fickle gods that delight in seeing us burn living things in their honor. But as a good friend of mine recently pointed out to me, if we accept that God needed a blood sacrifice from Jesus, aren't we implicitly endorsing that very system – that sacrificing to mollify the anger and wrath of God is actually real and we agree with it? It certainly seems that way to me.

Using the language of “sacrifice” was convenient for the ancients. It was a cultural relic that the people understood and made sense for them to understand what had happened to the legendary Messiah who was supposed to liberate them but instead was killed by the Romans. Because they used that language to help other understand his death in a positive light doesn't mean that there was necessarily some cosmic, transcendental balance sheet that had just been reconciled. The Bible is rife with examples of people using language familiar with the people listening to explain deep mysteries of God. This is merely one more example of that.

3.      Ordained suffering
Jesus is presented as the perfect exemplar of God’s morality. Does that mean that it is our Christian duty to persist in suffering sometimes because it might be in God’s will, just as the crucifixion was God’s will for the Jesus and the world? Do we, like Jesus in Gethsemane, see the path of less suffering but instead acquiesce to the injustices of the world on the off-chance it is God’s will? Should the wife who is beaten emulate Jesus and stick it out? Does God will slaves in foreign countries to be meek in their position of indignity? If they rose up and demanded justice, are they saying that Jesus’ way is wrong, unrealistic, or unworthy of their mirroring? Is it wrong of outsiders to acknowledge human suffering and work towards its relief, as it might very well take away the opportunity for that person to follow Jesus’ example?

For me, this is the most problematic question that arises as it is the most practical. It is also the most obvious. There are multiple examples throughout history of Jesus’ suffering on the cross being used to keep suffering humans in bondage instead of offering them the liberation from suffering they deserve. Given the teaching and ministry of Jesus – his life instead of his death – this seems furthest from how the good news should look.

You see, the problems with the penal substitutionary theory provide both a picture of God (and her relationship with Jesus) that is difficult for modern moral sensibilities to reconcile as good, but it also provides positive examples that aid the proliferation of human suffering and death. These problems might not have been present or clear during the time when the theory was discovered, but as the world changes and the story of God and Christ finds itself in new contexts, it is our responsibility to unravel the mysteries of the divine in a way that make sense and helps modern individuals understand the journey and their experience of faith. This is exactly the imperative of Christian theology.

SOLUTION (POSSIBLY)

Firstly, I want to say I don’t think there is only one way to re-think the problems listed above. I have read a dozen essays by theologians wrestling with new paradigms or reworking old ones in ways that take the problematic areas of penal substitution seriously.

Believing there is truth, wisdom, and beauty in the story of Jesus doesn't mean you have to understand that story the same way theologians did 500 years ago.

In fact, I believe there is an imperative TO UPDATE the way we understand the story of Jesus as our context changes. Therefore this “solution” is not necessarily the final landing spot for understanding salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ. It is just where we are landing right now. And I expect the future generations to dissect it, deconstruct it, try it on, and if it doesn't fit or carries too many problems to discard it for a better way of understanding that truth, wisdom, and beauty that I found in my context.

So, onto the solution. (I am drawing this idea from an article by J. Denny Weaver titled “Violence in Christian Theology.”)

Like Penal Substitutionary Atonement, this new paradigm comes with a name: Narrative Christus Victor – building off the ancient soteriology Christus Victor. In this, there remains a cosmic battle between the forces of good (God) and the forces of evil (empire, anti-Christ, human selfishness, etc.) but the historical situation plays pre-eminent importance in symbolizing that battle (for example, the Revelation of John portrays this well – different emperors’ reigns are seals broken by heavenly forces).

Unlike the cosmic legal/financial transaction whereby Jesus is passively offered as a payment for human sinfulness, Jesus is instead seen as an agent in his own right. He was a prophet/teacher promoting the Kingdom of God – otherwise understood as the reign of God. His death, therefore, was not a result of the will of God pre-ordained from the creation of time, but was born from the agency of the “powers and principalities” – the forces of evil – as they opposed the liberation taught and enacted by Jesus as he proclaimed the reign of God.

I will let Dr. Weaver explain:

“Jesus was an activist whose mission was to make the rule of God visible. And his acts demonstrated what the reign of God looked like – defending poor people, raising the status of women, raising the status of Samaritans, performing healings and exorcisms, preaching the reign of God, and more. His mission was to make the reign of God present in the world in his person and in his teaching, and to invite people to experience the liberation it presented.
And when Jesus made the reign of God visible and present in that way, it was so threatening that the assembled array of evil forces killed him… Jesus carries out a mission to make the rule of God present and visible, a mission to bring and to give life. When this mission threatens the forces of evil, they retaliate with violence, killing Jesus. This suffering is not something willed by nor needed by God, and it is not directed Godward. To the contrary, the killing of Jesus is the ultimate contrast between the nonviolent reign of God and the rule of evil.”

The sacrifice of Jesus was never something that God needed to satisfy his anger and wrath. Likewise Jesus’ death was neither willed nor pre-ordained by God. Jesus’ torture and murder was an act of rebellion and opposition to the very rule of God enacted through Jesus’ ministry and teaching! This provides even more significance to the resurrection, as God’s ultimate defeat of the powers that oppose his reign on earth. It also removes passivity from Jesus and God. Jesus was an agent who actively promoted the liberation of the Kingdom of God despite the risks. When the powerful responded with violence, God – also not passive – nonviolently defeated that opposition through the ultimate act of life-giving: the resurrection.

This new way to understand the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus addresses all three aforementioned problems and provides a new and vibrant way of understanding our mission in continuity to Jesus’. But what of the problems that originally created Calvin’s soteriology? What about eternal salvation/punishment and the redemption of human sinfulness?

This picture of Jesus offers a more holistic understanding of the effects of sin and salvation, providing liberation not only of our souls but that of our entire persons and even our social orders, both in this life and the next. Salvation is something that begins now as we liberate the poor, afflicted, and downtrodden from the effects of sin writ large. It also continues the teaching of the prophets that was reiterated throughout the Gospels: “God desires mercy, not sacrifice.”

Salvation springs from God’s mercy and her desire to be reconciled to her creation, not some formulaic sacrificial system satiated by the blood sacrifice of a deified, yet innocent, man. Jesus becomes the first to experience the resurrection, and it is through faith in this mercy and grace that we begin to experience the wellspring of the resurrection in this life and beyond.

CONCLUSION

I can’t help but think back at the violence, the suffering, and the death of those sheep. They were an incremental part of the wedding celebration. But the wedding would have been a wedding even without the death and suffering of the sheep. They didn't make the wedding a wedding. The love, commitment, and binding of lives together made it the wedding.

Likewise, the violence, the suffering, and the death of Jesus didn't make our salvation. It is an incremental part of our salvation because it happened. But God desires mercy, not sacrifice. Jesus death was, and is, how evil will always respond to God’s scandalous mercy and grace. But God’s response – the resurrection – is our hope and our assurance that the Kingdom of God, the rule and reign of God, has come.