Why is Jesus' crucifixion the ultimate price of love? When I try to answer this I start with Jesus' teaching of God's forgiveness of our sins being something of which he assures those he heals, whereas at the time it was thought to be something that was granted in response to paying for a perfect animal to be sacrificed on the altar in Jerusalem and thus under the control of the priests. Jesus was cutting into their revenue stream, it could be said. Certainly in Matthew's gospel Jesus is constantly butting heads with the religious authorities. And they are portrayed as prompting the Romans to crucify him. And we know the Romans don't need any prompting; they could have arrested and crucified Jesus if only because he was attracting large crowds at Passover which always made the Romans fear rebellions. Still, exactly how the crucifixion could have been something under Jesus' control, so that his undergoing it constituted the ultimate price of love, is something that I don't quite get. (Of course I am not a believer in penal substitutionary atonement - if I were the answer would be obvious.) I would appreciate your sharing any light on this that doesn't require a dissertation 😊.
I don't think it's presented as under his active control - it's even important that it's not, because that's part of the critique of power. He could have escaped. it's the consequence of his willingness to act as he does however, and to make the claims he does, and he is presented as knowing that and accepting it. Love has consequences and in a hateful world these are unlikely to be easy.
That he could have escaped is crucial. He chose to continue doing what he was doing and saying what he was saying even though he knew it would probably get him killed, because he knew it was God's will. Therein lies the sacrifice.
Why is Jesus' crucifixion the ultimate price of love? When I try to answer this I start with Jesus' teaching of God's forgiveness of our sins being something of which he assures those he heals, whereas at the time it was thought to be something that was granted in response to paying for a perfect animal to be sacrificed on the altar in Jerusalem and thus under the control of the priests. Jesus was cutting into their revenue stream, it could be said. Certainly in Matthew's gospel Jesus is constantly butting heads with the religious authorities. And they are portrayed as prompting the Romans to crucify him. And we know the Romans don't need any prompting; they could have arrested and crucified Jesus if only because he was attracting large crowds at Passover which always made the Romans fear rebellions. Still, exactly how the crucifixion could have been something under Jesus' control, so that his undergoing it constituted the ultimate price of love, is something that I don't quite get. (Of course I am not a believer in penal substitutionary atonement - if I were the answer would be obvious.) I would appreciate your sharing any light on this that doesn't require a dissertation 😊.
I don't think it's presented as under his active control - it's even important that it's not, because that's part of the critique of power. He could have escaped. it's the consequence of his willingness to act as he does however, and to make the claims he does, and he is presented as knowing that and accepting it. Love has consequences and in a hateful world these are unlikely to be easy.
That he could have escaped is crucial. He chose to continue doing what he was doing and saying what he was saying even though he knew it would probably get him killed, because he knew it was God's will. Therein lies the sacrifice.
Really helpful commentary. I have preached this multiple times but never seen its context quite so explicitly. Thank you.
Thank you!