Why is Jesus death effective for me?
The Bible says, "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:23). Why could Jesus' death substitute for mine?
Problem
Human laws have many consequences. For infractions, usually there is a fine which anybody can pay. However for crimes that require jail time or a death penalty, only the person that committed the crime can pay the consequences. Why can Jesus take the consequence of death for me and still be a just God?
Explanation
Sin is choosing a value system, or being motivated in our actions by a value system that is not the value system of God. This has implications for relationships.
Death is a relational term because it means a separation or breaking of relationship. When we do not have a common value system with God, we cannot have a relationship with him - and that is death.
This explains why Romans 6:23 ("the wages of sin is death") isn't false. Since all humans are mortal (whether Christians or not) this verse isn't speaking of mortality. After this earthly life, both those in heaven and in hell will continue to exist forever, so we can see that continued existence is unrelated to life or death. The key difference between those in heaven and those in hell is whether they have relationship with God. This verse is telling us that the big consequence of sin is that I do not and cannot have a relationship with God.
God's plan to solve this problem has two parts for us: we acknowledge Jesus as our king, and adopt his value system. Jesus' death relates to the first part.
We can start this explanation from a legal approach, although with a slightly different perspective than is usually given. These days we may not be practically familiar with kings, but we are familiar with the principles of authority/responsibility such as
- parents for children
- work-place bosses (& corporate officers) for those that report to them
- military officers for those under their command
In all these cases, the one in authority can be held responsible for the ones under them, including taking the consequence for some crimes. When we are under Jesus' authority in his Kingdom, Jesus as God has the right to substitute himself for us with regard to the consequences of ungodly values and sin. •••
I realize that these human precedents do not explain how one person could die for someone else. Between humans that is never an option in any legal system that is just. However, our relationship to God is different than that of our relationship with any human. If we view Jesus' death from a human strictly legal perspective, we cannot account for it. Human legal precedents only have analogy to his death. They can help us understand things, but they do not directly explain it.
The analogy problem mostly exists if we think of sin as a legal crime. In fact it is problematic to use a model of legal crime for understanding sin. Governments define crime and legalities for those in their juristiction. However, there is no government God can appeal to for justice regarding our crimes against him. The legal model simply breaks down and it is a limited analogy.
We need to think more of how sin is a personal offense against God. Then the value system perspective makes strong sense...
On the cross, Jesus did take that consequence; his relationship with God was broken. ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27:46) Jesus, who had never been out of relationship with God before, experienced this death of relationship.
Just before his body died, Jesus said two more things: "It is finished." (John 19:29) and "Father, into your hand I commend my spirit." (Luke 23:46) These showed that the relationship break was not permanent, and in fact it was broken no more. This makes sense because throughout all of this, Jesus never had a value system that was different than God's. Therefore, he couldn't remain out of relationship with God!
There is another historical precedent in God's dealings with humans that supports this substitutionary aspect: Up until the time of the kings of Israel, God held individuals responsible for their sins (Joshua 7, Judges 2:11-23, 3:12, etc). But from the time of king David, and on, the people were judged according to the behavior of their king:
- for good as with David (1 & 2 Samuel) and Josiah (2 Kings 22 & 23)
- or for bad (2 Samuel 24:1-25, 1 Kings 11:9-26, 2 Kings 21:2-16)
The king represented the people to God, and God effectively saw the people through their king. For Christians, Jesus is our king and represents us to God; God sees us through Jesus. God judges us according to the behavior of our king, and the behavior of our king Jesus is completely good. God sees the consequences of our ungodly values as covered, and he sees us as having values identical to his own through Jesus.
But note: We can only actually be in Jesus' kingdom if we observe the law of the kingdom. This one rule is that we are to love each other as Jesus loved us (John 15:12) - which is to say, we must adopt his value system.
Further, Jesus can represent us to God because he is also holds the office of priest. Only the priest could offer sacrifices to God for the people. (A priest mediates between God and man.) King Saul (before David) tried to do this himself from a lack of faith (1 Samuel 13:1-14), and God rejected him because he was not priest.
King David, loving God deeply, brought the center of worship to his conquered city of Jerusalem. David was very interested in the king as priest, and looked back in the history of his city to a man named Melchizedek who was both king and priest. He then wrote the prophetic Psalm 110 about a coming king who was also a priest like Melchizedek. In Hebrews 4:14-5:10 the writer assigns the Melchizedek priesthood to Jesus, making the explicit point that for this reason, Jesus can represent us to God better than any other.
Note that a purely legal approach to this question has an explanatory deficit. Human legal systems cannot account for what Jesus did for us. They only give us precedent by analogy. The values and relationship approach to forgiveness of sin does however make very good sense of things.
Also note that pragmatically, every time a human forgives another, they personally absorb the relationship cost of the offense. They pay for the offense that was against them because the offender cannot undo the happening of the offense. So the offender can never pay their debt of the relationship cost of the offense. Always the offended must pay the cost as they forgive.
Our essential offense against God is that we have all (at times) chosen our own value system. Because we then do not share values with God, we have nothing in common with him, and there is nothing on which to base relationship. Relationship then with God is dead.
The cross is when & where Jesus absorbed the consequence of our rebellious choice of values. Jesus (even though being God) died in relationship to God at the cross. On the cross, Jesus did the hard work in forgiveness of absorbing the relational consequence of sin (which is death of relationship).
God wants to forgive us for our part in the broken relationship; on the cross God demonstrated this by showing that he started his part of the process. So on the cross because forgiveness can restore relationship, God defeated this final death.
Finally, life also is a relational term (see Romans 6:23 again). Life is on-going relationship based on a common value system. Jesus, as a free gift, will take responsibility for our relationship problem with God. And he brings us into permanent relationship with God when he is our Lord.
The value system perspective used here is based on ideas from the work of Darren Twa.