Why did Jesus have to die?

In my previous two posts in this series I questioned the theory of penal substitution. Noting the lack of evidence for it in scripture, the counter evidence against it as well as the logical inconsistencies one encounters when following the thought process down the road. Moving forward, let’s examine why Jesus did have to die if it was not to satisfy God’s wrath. Not only that, but let’s explore why He rose again and why it is central to the gospel. This good news as I understand it, is not about a God whose justice demands that someone, even a substitute, experiences His wrath against them but it is one of a loving God who shows mercy, love and a willingness to seek out and redeem what has been damaged or tainted by sin. The pictures could hardly be any more different than the one the reformers developed and gave to us. So for a brief few minutes let us lay aside the ideas of Calvin (and Anselm before him) and go straight to the Bible to see what it says about Jesus dying for us. We will look at just one point today and several others down the road.

Jesus died to defeat the devil

When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the garden, everything changed. Well, nearly everything. Adam’s choosing to become independent from God led to a radical change in humans. Rather than being like God, man became sinful, fallen and broken, and due to man’s sinfulness, the world suffered as well. Paul said in the book of Romans that the whole of creation groans and eagerly awaits liberation from bondage and decay (Romans 8:19–22). Yet scripture also tells us that although the serpent lost his legs in Genesis 3, the devil himself benefited from man’s rebellion, temporarily gaining power and control of this world. Jesus referred to Satan as the ‘Prince of this world’ (John 12:31, 14:30), Paul referred to him as the ‘god of this age’ (2 Corinthians 4:4) and as ‘the ruler of the kingdom of the air’ (Ephesians 2:2), while John said that ‘the whole world is under the control of the evil one’ (1 John 5:19). In Matthew 4:8–9, Satan takes Jesus up on a high mountain and shows him all the kingdoms of the world, offering them to Jesus if He will bow down and worship him. Jesus did not dispute Satan’s claim that they were his kingdoms to give away, but rather, He made it clear to whom His personal allegiance belonged.

The same power that Christians fight for today was expressly forsaken by Jesus. His kingdom is not of this world and I throw this in as a little challenge for believers to think about. Focusing on Jesus though, this passage tells us that He was not willing to make a deal with the devil or play the game by his rules. Jesus shows us that He did not come to reform the devils kingdom but to usurp the works of Satan, He came to disarm him entirely and tramp on his head and in so doing, He would release those who were held in bondage by the evil one. For example, in 1 John 3:8 it says:

He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.

Hebrews 2:14 is another verse that speaks plainly of Christ’s purpose in dying:

Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.

Unlike penal substitutionary theory which misapplies a couple of texts and tells us that Jesus died so that God’s anger, like that of all of the pagan deities, could only be satisfied by a human sacrifice. Scripture shows us a different God, and through an abundance of texts and authors it teaches us that the death and resurrection of Jesus was not to appease an angry Father but rather it was an all-out attack against an angry devil and on the kingdom of darkness. It was an act of war that defied all of the logic that we commonly associate with battle. Although the devil still roams around today, up to his same old tricks, the Bible is clear that he has already been judged, disarmed and defeated, even though his final fate has not yet been carried out (John 12:31, 16:11; Colossians 1:13, 2:15; 1 John 3:8). So the part the cross seems to have dealt with (at least in the instantly recognizable sense) has to do with breaking Satan’s power over man and the ushering in of the counter-kingdom of God. Although Satan still holds people in bondage and has a general influence and control within the world and over society, in Christ we now have the option of living under a different King, free from Satan’s yoke of slavery.

Luke 4:18 tells us that Jesus came to release the oppressed and to set the captives free. Because of the cross, the devil no longer has power over those who have been born of the Spirit. His only weapon is deceit. He is like the little old man standing behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Nevertheless, in this world, deception, death and destruction still abound as the principalities and the powers of darkness continue to do their thing. Just as the truth sets men free, ignorance and error will keep us in bondage. Ultimately, we still await a day when Jesus will ‘put all of His enemies under His feet’ (1 Corinthians 15:25) and where ‘Satan will be crushed’ (Romans 16:20) but we are simultaneously assured that the battle has already been fought and that the victory has already been won (Revelation 5:5). Because of the cross, the devil no longer has power over those who have been born of the Spirit.

I am taking a break from the usual topics that I write about to spread a little awareness about keratoconus.

What is Keratoconus?

Today, November 10^th, is world keratoconus day, the word entered my life unexpectedly several years ago after visiting the optometrist after noticing a rapid decrease in vision in my left eye. A week later an ophthalmologist diagnosed the problem and warned me of the long and expensive journey that lay ahead.

Keratoconus (KC) is a rare and degenerative eye disease that occurs when your usually dome –shaped cornea becomes cone-shaped causing blurry and distorted vision which when left untreated or uncorrected can lead to been declared legally blind. Because our pupils open wider at night, the pupil is exposed to more of the irregular corneal surface in KC sufferers making night vision and light sensitivity far more pronounced. There is no concrete evidence but it is thought that the cause of KC is oftentimes genetic or the result of rubbing one’s eyes.

The world with keratoconus

Treatment for keratoconus

There is no cure for keratoconus but the progression can be slowed or stopped with a procedure called crosslinking which is performed to strengthen the cornea, this is commonly known as epi-on (noninvasive procedure) or epi-off (which involves surgical removal of the corneal epithelium during the procedure). A corneal ring implant known as Intacs is another option available which helps to flatten the peak of the corneal cone. Then as a last resort, a corneal transplant can be performed as well which is something around 20% of people with KC will require.  

Crosslinking procedure

Glasses and soft lenses do not help to correct vision in a keratoconic eye so once an eye is relatively stable, usually a few months after having crosslinking done, vision is corrected by using either RGP (rigid gas permeable) lenses or scleral lenses. Finding the right lens is a long process of trial and error and can take years to get right but for me personally, In my left eye which is my KC eye, I went from 20/317 vision to 20/65 vision once I received my scleral lens (20/200 is legally blind) so the struggle is well worth it in the end.

My personal KC kit and part of the everyday morning routine

Support

The chances are if you have KC that no one around you will understand it or even have heard about it. It can be a daunting and lonely road so it is best to join a keratoconus group on Facebook or a similar site where you can ask questions or just share your struggles, invite those closest to you to join as well so that they can understand what you are going through. In the end though, KC is not a death sentence, the vast majority of people will still be able to drive and work a regular job and in time, you do adapt to the changes. I still get to write which is something that I love. All of the procedures and lenses mentioned above are relatively new and although advancement is slow due to the rarity of the condition, it is there and the options you have available to you today simply did not exist 1 or 2 generations ago. It is a good time to be alive.

The Old Testament Case for Nonviolence (book review)

I have done a lot of study on the atonement and hell in recent years, now the next topic that I have started to tackle is the violent depictions of God in the Old Testament and how to reconcile them with the clearest image of the Father we have available to us which is the non-violent, peacemaker Son Jesus. So I was thrilled when Matthew Curtis Fleischer's book, the Old Testament Case for nonviolence came across my path for a review opportunity as it had been on my radar for some time already.

The book starts with Matthew describing the problem of violence in the Old Testament in a way that even Richard Dawkins does not get close too. The frequent mass killings of men, women and children, sometimes for seemingly insignificant reasons or through no fault of their own. The commands to kill brothers, friends and neighbors. Even one particular story where God causes His enemies to cannibalize their own children. Or the story when a city was to be destroyed but the soldiers got to spare the young virgins as the spoils of war. Not to mention the very politically incorrect shunning of the blind, lame, dwarves, hunchbacks, the visually impaired and anyone who had suffered the misfortune of having crushed testicles. This goes on for a number of pages and chapter 1 pulls no punches and you start thinking to yourself, how is he going to come back from this? By the way, you can read chapter 1 for free by clicking over here.

I share a lot in common with Matthew, we both see Jesus as the final word on Christian ethics and living, the culmination and perfect revelation of God the Father and because of this, we both believe that Christians are called to nonviolence. And I am extremely glad for having read this book as I have learned so much from it. For example, it had not occurred to me before that Israel never had a proper military before they became a monarchy, or that they were prohibited from stockpiling weapons. Israel as a nation was highly dependent on God to fight their battles for them. No Jew reading the scriptures would think of the Old Testament as glorying in war, rather, they would have seen Gods protective hand over them.

Similarly, Israel's conquests were all about land. It is interesting to consider that the Levites were never granted a portion of the land in Israel and that we the church are a kingdom of priests. In other words, we do not have land to defend or fight for, the kingdom of God is not defined by nationalities or lines drawn in the sand, thus, we the church operate under a wholly different set of principles to what the nation of Israel did.

As much as I loved this very readable book, I must say though that I don't wholly agree with some of the books primary arguments. The greatest of which is that God chose to reveal His ways and nature incrementally to His people. To be clear, this is not an idea that I completely reject. Matthew makes good and I believe a compelling case for the giant leaps forward the nation of Israel lived by compared to the surrounding nations of the time. What seems savage to us was fairly tame and revolutionary for its day. And that goes for war, the treatment of woman, slaves and more.

There is a lot of progressive revelation seen in the scriptures, an obvious example would be Jesus' prohibition of divorce where Moses had been more lenient. But to say that God permits something or relents to mans poor ideas and choices is hardly the same as arguing that God partakes in those sins Himself. Where I think the OT Case for Nonviolence falls short is that it concedes that God acted violently in times past because man was not ready for a nonviolent God and had to be slowly brought to a place where he could accept a God of nonviolence. I find this unconvincing. Yes, we meet people where they are at and we teach them at a level that they can comprehend. We are all on that road ourselves too, we have right beliefs and wrong ones but that does not mean that we partake in error ourselves because someone is not as far along the path as we might be. 

I am still on a personal journey to reconcile the violence of the Old Testament with the way of the Prince of Peace. This book has not settled all of those questions for me but it has made a valuable contribution to that conversation and I feel far more enlightened for having read it.

I received this book to review from Speakeasy in exchange for an honest review, and honestly, it's fantastic and contains a wealth of valuable insights for one searching for answers on this topic. Once again, go read chapter 1 over here and if it grips you as it did me, go get it on Amazon.