What is the Significance of Jesus’ Death?

This has been a question that has perplexed Christians for centuries, especially since Anselm proposed the theory of substitutionary atonement in 1097AD. Adding to this confusion is that theologians through the years have mixed scriptural metaphors. On top of that, many try to combine the differing theologies of different books of the Bible creating still more confusion.

Two metaphors that often get mixed are the Jewish festivals of Passover and Atonement. Thus, people intermingle the line from John 1:29: “Look, there’s the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,” (SV) with the scapegoat theology of Leviticus 16.

Even the progressive pastor / theologian Robin Meyers makes this mistake in his book Saving Jesus from the Church: How to Stop Worshiping Christ and Start Following Jesus. He writes on page 62, “[The gospel of] Mark’s permanent appropriation of the symbolism of Passover and its connection with the death of Jesus changed the course of human history – and our understanding of what the death of Jesus ended up meaning to all Christendom.” He then goes on to espouse that Jesus, as the Paschal lamb is the scapegoat and the blood sacrifice offered in the Temple on the Day of Atonement. Thus, he is mixing understandings of Passover and Atonement and mixing ideas from the books of Leviticus, Mark, and John as we will see below.

First, we have to remember that Passover and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) are two different holidays in the Jewish tradition. Passover takes place in the spring in remembrance of the Exodus, and Yom Kippur takes place in the fall to symbolize repentance and forgiveness.

Notice, Passover is in remembrance of the Exodus. Let’s think about this. Moses did NOT come into Egypt and tell the Israelites, “The reason you are in slavery is because you are so sinful.” No, simply, God heard their cry and sent Moses to be the spokesperson to guide them out of Egypt.

Likewise, the lamb was not slain because the Israelites were sinful. It was slain for them to EAT! Why? They are leaving on a long journey the next day, leaving Egypt. Note Exodus 12:11, “This is how you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it hurriedly.” They are dressed for traveling! They need protein!

What about the blood sprinkled on the doorposts? The text says nothing about sin (see Exodus 12). It is simply a sign that those who inhabit the house trust God. They are saying, “By doing this, we signify that we are one of Yours, God! We trust that you will take care of us!”

It is important to realize that Mark NEVER equates Jesus with a lamb, Passover (Paschal) or otherwise. We only see that explicit connection of Jesus being the Paschal lamb in 1 Corinthians 5:7 and the Gospel of John (see John 1:29, 36; 19:31-36). John has Jesus crucified after noon (when Passover lambs are slaughtered), and after his death, his legs are not broken – one of the mandates about the Passover lamb (see Exodus 12:46). It is interesting in considering John’s use of Jesus as the Passover lamb to read John 6:53-58 where we are commanded to eat the flesh and drink the blood. Why? We need nourishment for the journey of an abundant life!

Okay, so Mark does not say Jesus is the Passover lamb, and the Passover lamb has nothing to do with sin. Does Mark equate Jesus with the scapegoat or the blood sacrificial goat?

No. Two books, as we saw above, equate Jesus with Passover lambs. Acts 8:32, 1 Peter 1:19, and Revelation in many places equates Jesus with a lamb. NEVER is Jesus equated with a goat, and there is a distinction between the two. Consider the parable of the sheep and goats of Matthew 25:31-46. Though these two animals are related, they are different!

We also have to realize that Mark just is not all that concerned with “sin,” “sins,” the “sinful,” “sinners,” “forgive,” “forgiveness,” or “forgiven.” In this sixteen chapter book, these terms are only found in the following passages:

• Mark 1:4-5 (talking about John’s baptism for the forgiveness of sins);
• Mark 2:5, 7, 9-10 (the healing story of the paralytic where Jesus forgives sins simply by saying “you are forgiven”);
• Mark 2:15-17 (Jesus is eating with sinners, not the “righteous”);
• Mark 3:28-29 (talking of the only unforgivable sin);
• Mark 4:12 (parables are told so the hearers won’t be forgiven);
• Mark 8:38 (Jesus will be ashamed of those who are ashamed of him in this “adulterous and sinful generation”);
• Mark 11:25 (you should forgive so God will forgive you); and
• Mark 14:41 (Jesus is betrayed into the hands of sinners).

Notice that Mark is essentially done talking about sin as a topic after Chapter 3, and Jesus can forgive just by saying, “You are forgiven.” He does not have to die in order to forgive! Never does Mark say that Jesus’ death has anything to do with sin. The cup of the covenant at the last supper is not for the forgiveness of sins (we see this ONLY in Matthew 26:27-28 – compare 1 Corinthians 11:25, Mark 14:24, and Luke 22:20-21).

Plus, we explicitly and metaphorically see in Mark that Jesus’ purpose is not to die for our sins. Mark 1:38 has Jesus say, “Let’s go somewhere else, to the neighboring villages, so I can speak there too, since that’s what I came for.” (SV) Likewise, consider the parable of Mark 12:1-8:

A man planted a vineyard, put a hedge around it, dug a winepress, built a tower, leased it out to some farmers, and went abroad. In due time he sent a slave to the farmers to collect his share of the vineyard’s crop from them. But they grabbed him, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. And again, he sent another slave to them, but they attacked him and abused him. Then he sent another, and this one they killed; many others followed, some of whom they beat, others of whom they killed. Finally he sent his son, whom he loved. He said to himself, “They will this son of mine some respect.” But those farmers said to one another, “This guy’s the heir! Come on, let’s kill him and the inheritance will be ours!” So they grabbed him, and killed him, and threw him outside the vineyard. (SV)

Jesus didn’t come to die; he came to teach, preach, and get people back on God’s side, living out God’s kingdom in this world.

Okay, but what about Mark 10:45? When it says that Jesus is “to give his life a ransom for many,” is this not supporting the traditional idea of atonement – that Jesus had to die for the forgiveness of sins? I do not think so. Let us look at what this word “ransom” means.

Typically we try to define ransom as “an offering for sin.” However, I do not think this is a correct interpretation. Note what Markan expert, Morna Hooker says on pages 248-249 of her 1991 book, The Gospel According to Saint Mark:

The noun ransom (λύτφον) and the cognate verb ‘to redeem’ (λυτφόω) are both used in the LXX [Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible] to describe a variety of transactions – e.g. the payment of money given to free a slave (Lev. 25.47-55, where the Hebrew root is g-‘-l), or the sacrifice offered in place of the first-born (Exod. 13.13-16, where the root is p-d-h). . . . The preposition for (άντί) can have a variety of meanings, according to the context. If ransom were here understood to be a substitutionary sacrifice, then it would mean ‘instead of’, but it is important not to read back into this saying ideas which belong to later centuries, and if the noun has the more general sense of ‘redemption’ suggested above, then the preposition will mean ‘for the sake of’ or ‘on behalf of’.

I argue that Jesus gives his life, according to Mark, “for the sake of others” or “on behalf of others” to set an example for discipleship.

Consider Mark 8:27-38: Jesus says that being the Messiah means getting oneself killed. BUT, he goes on to say that if you want to be a true disciple, you must be willing to deny yourself and take up your cross and follow him! In the first century, the cross had one meaning – execution. Jesus says we should be so committed to the gospel that we are willing to die for it!

Remember the cup of the covenant at the last supper? In Mark, this was not for the forgiveness of sin. What is it for? We have to consider how Mark uses “cup” elsewhere in the Gospel:

• Right after the last supper, Jesus goes to the Garden to pray “that the cup might pass from him,” but he willingly drinks it – going to his death.
• In Mark 10:35-45, James and John ask to sit at Jesus’ left and right when he comes into his glory. Jesus asks if they can drink the same cup as him. They say they can, and Jesus affirms that they will.

In a covenant, there are responsibilities put upon both parties. The cup of the covenant is a covenant of discipleship that Jesus, in Mark, shows us how to fulfill! In this covenant, we are called to take up our cross and follow Jesus even to the point of death! Jesus does not do it for us so we won’t have to. Jesus does it to show us how to!

What does Matthew mean by saying the “blood of the covenant . . . is poured out for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28)?

There may be multiple meanings to this phrase, but we must always keep in mind that Matthew’s gospel is by far the most Jewish of the four gospels. We must, therefore, read it in that context.

First, we must remember that Jesus is often chastised for having hung out with sinners. For many of Jesus’ opponents, you should separate yourselves from sinners – in essence kicking them out of the community. Rather, Jesus says that where two or more are gathered, there he is as well (Matthew 18:20). Likewise, whenever you reach out to assist the least of these (which might include sinners), you are helping Jesus. We see in both instances that community is extremely important for Jesus and Matthew. Thus, Jesus in Matthew may be saying, “God covenants with you to always forgive you. This reminds you that you are forgiven. There is nothing to inhibit your being in community and serving God and your neighbors. Make sure to invite others to share in this covenant so they, too, can invite others!”

Another possible (or additional meaning) may relate to the year of Jubilee. New Testament scholar, Warren Carter, notes in The New Interpreter’s Study Bible on page 1794:

The forgiveness of sins does not denote personal sins. The term “forgiveness” is used fourteen times in Leviticus 25 (also Deuteronomy 15:1-3, 9) to denote the year of Jubilee, the year of societal restructuring, freeing slaves, canceling debt, returning property. Jesus’ death anticipates a just society at his return and establishment of God’s empire.

This idea is certainly in keeping with the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:12) where we ask for the forgiveness of debts as we forgive our debtors in God’s empire (kingdom) that we are praying to come upon the earth.

What about the letters of Paul and other books of the New Testament?

For sure, the phrase, “Jesus died for us or all” does appear in Paul’s letters:

• Romans 5:8
• Romans 8:34
• 2 Corinthians 5:14 (replacing “us” with “all”)
• 1 Thessalonians 5:10

Likewise, we have other related passages in Paul:

• 1 Corinthians 15:3 says that “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” – where in the Scriptures (which for him is only the Old Testament) he never explicitly says, nor is there any clear, explicit indication in the OT that speaks to this.
• Romans 3:24-25 says that “God put Jesus forward as a sacrifice of atonement.”
• Romans 6:10 says that the death Jesus died, he died to sin.
• Ephesians 5:2 (likely not written by Paul) says that Christ is a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God (not sin).

On top of these Pauline letters, other books of the New Testament have similar phrases:

• Hebrews 9:26 says that Christ appeared at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself (but this author was wrong in that the end still hasn’t come).
• Hebrews 10:12 says that Christ offered a single sacrifice for sins.
• 1 John 2:2 & 4:10 says that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for our sins.

Don’t these passages speak of substitutionary atonement? No! Because we are dealing with different books of the Bible from a very different time than our own, there are many facets to what is really being meant here.

As we see above, Paul and other New Testament writers do somehow relate Jesus’ death with sin. HOWEVER, that does not mean that they meant, “God required a sacrifice, and Jesus did it so we won’t have to.” Note that none of those passages say that God required a sacrifice. As noted earlier, this theology was not fully developed until 1097AD by Anselm. Prior to that time, the dominant understanding was the Jesus died AND rose to defeat the devil. In other words, Jesus showed that the devil does not have the last word; God does. We shouldn’t be afraid; fear leads to sin – not doing what God wants and destroying relationships.

So, what do these authors mean?

Jesus dies because of sin or our sinful nature. Whenever the world sees one standing up to the powers that be, going against the grain, our sinful nature says “no” to that person. If that one will not change to fit the status quo, we kill them. We see this not only in Jesus but also Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Jesus dies for us in a first century context. He went by himself to the cross. He didn’t tell the Jewish leadership or Pilate, “Why are doing this to me? Peter, James, and John are just as guilty as me. Crucify them, too.” In the story of Adam and Eve, they pass the buck from Adam to Eve to the Serpent. Jesus doesn’t do that.

Jesus dies for us in a first century context. He was so concerned about the plight of the people like himself, that he stood up to the powers that killed him. They sinned against God in doing so. We should be willing to stand up and be willing to die as well (see Galatians 5:13-14 and Galatians 6:2).

Jesus dies for us as an example of how we are to live. Even if we are facing death, we need to stay true to what God calls us to, humbly facing death (see Philippians 2:1-13), knowing that those who might kill us do not have the final say. This example was also lived out in Gandhi, King, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Jesus died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures – Many think this goes back to the “suffering servant” in Isaiah 53. This servant, in the original context, is likely the Jewish nation and / or Jerusalem. The community of both suffered because of the sins of many, but not the entire community. If this phrase does go back to Isaiah 53, we should not read Jesus back into that text. We should not assume that text is about Jesus. Rather, we should see Jesus being influenced by that passage. It looks like Jesus because he chose to live in the same way. Jesus, seeing that God took care of Israel / Jerusalem in the long run, sees no need to ultimately fear sins inflicted by powerful kings (i.e. the Romans). It is important to realize that although Isaiah 53 is often seen as a “prediction of Jesus,” it is written in past tense. That is not interpreting the future but the past!

God put Jesus forward as a sacrifice of atonement, but that does not mean “in our place.” Look at Philippians 2 again; we are called to sacrifice as well. Romans 12:1-2 says we are to sacrifice ourselves. When we sacrifice ourselves, we are “at-one” with God (which is all atonement means). God also puts us forward as a sacrifice of atonement, and the atonement is not just for ourselves. When we sacrifice, the goal is also to lead others to be at-one with God.

Jesus died to sin – In the very next verse (Romans 6:11), Paul also encourages us to “die to sin” or the “sinful nature.” In so doing, we do not sin any longer as Jesus did by being willing to go all the way to the point of death.

Christ is a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God – Again, see Romans 12:1-2 and Philippians 2:1-13. We are to sacrifice OURSELVES to God, too! In addition, let’s take a look at Ephesians 5:1-2 as a unit:

“Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.”

The point of this passage is not Jesus’ sacrifice but our imitating that same kind of love!

Hebrews – These are some troublesome texts; however, we must realize that this letter is written to Jewish Christians trying to understand what to do now that the Temple in Jerusalem is gone and sacrifices are no longer possible. The author says that Jesus offers a single sacrifice, but then in Hebrews 13:10-16 we see that we are called to sacrifice by being in service like Jesus. Obviously, sacrifice has not ended with Jesus – just the definition and the items sacrificed change.

What’s it all mean?

Jesus’ death does not somehow magically fix our relationship with God. If it did, the New Testament would be clear about universal salvation, and / or all people would be on board and getting along. Yet, we still have choices to make; we still are called to “have the mind of Christ” (Philippians 2:5) and to “obey all that Jesus commanded us” (Matthew 28:20). We are told to “take up our crosses and follow Jesus” (Mark 8:34), never letting faith be separated from works (James 2:26).

A common Greek phrase in Paul’s letters is PISTISCHRISTOS. PISTIS = faith; CHRISTOS = Christ. All too often, our English Bibles translate this as “faith in Christ.” Another common phrase for Paul is ENCHRISTOS: EN = in; and CHRISTOS = Christ. Notice above, however, that Paul didn’t write PISTISENCHRISTOS. He wrote PISTISCHRISTOS. It was Martin Luther who chose to translate it as “faith in Christ” when a better translation is “faith of Christ.” Thus, Galatians 2:20 reads:

It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (NRSV)

I actually prefer the way the Scholars Version translates this passage:

The person I used to be no longer lives. God’s Anointed lives in me; and the bodily life I now live, I live by the same confident trust in God that the “son of God” had. He loved me and gave up his life for my benefit.

What Jesus’ death does is show that if we have the same faith, the same confident trust in God that Jesus had, we truly have nothing to fear! All that the powers of the world can do is persecute us or kill us. They can’t take away who we are – who God created us to be. They can’t take away our humanity. God will vindicate us.

What’s it all mean to you?

Copyright Rev. Troy Sims – 2011