
Did God sacrifice Himself to Himself to save us from Himself?
The paper is a refutation of an attack that has been employed by several atheists / critics of the Christian
faith. So, with that introduction in place—here it is.
---------In the nearly 2,000 years of church history, atheists, critics, and skeptics have developed numerous
arguments against the Christian faith. Some of the arguments are philosophical, such as the problem of
evil. Others are more focused on history, such as denials of the resurrection of Jesus Christ due to the
supposed lack of evidence outside of the Bible. Still others are more personal, such as pointing out the
evil actions and/or attitudes of some who have claimed to be followers of Jesus Christ. And then there
are arguments that attack Christian theology, such as pointing out the supposed illogic and/or
incoherency of the Trinity or the hypostatic union.
In response, Christian philosophers, theologians, and apologists have developed refutations of these
attacks and/or clarifications of Christian beliefs. The defense of the Christian faith is an unending
process, however. As new attacks are formulated, new defenses must be developed in response. As 1
Peter 3:15 instructs, we are always to be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a
reason for the hope that is in you…” (ESV). Equally important to being prepared is the need to give our
defense of what and why we believe with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15b).
In recent years, a new arrow has appeared in the quiver of some atheists and critics of Christianity. The
new projectile in the fiery salvo summarizes the Christian doctrine of salvation with a statement akin to
“God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself.” In the forward to A Manual for Creating
Atheists by Peter Boghossian, Michael Shermer writes, “God could just forgive the sin we never
committed, but instead he sacrificed his son Jesus, who is actually just himself in the flesh because
Christians believe in only one god…the only way to avoid eternal punishment for sins we never
committed from this all-loving God is to accept his son—who is actually himself—as our savior. So…God
sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself. Barking mad!”1
Matt Dillahunty, host of The Atheist Experience, describes the Christian message as “God sacrificing
himself to himself for a weekend.”2 T-shirts are readily available from multiple sellers with slogans like,
“Atheist: Because God sending himself to sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself is a little bit
too much for any logical person.”3 Another option is “God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from
himself because of a rule he made himself simply doesn’t work for me.”4
While “God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself,” henceforth referred to as “the
summary,” is not, and never has been, what Christians believe about God’s provision of salvation, it is
analogous enough to cause confusion in some and trepidation in others. And, because explaining how
Christians do not believe any aspect of the summary is time-consuming and theologically complex, it is a
difficult accusation to refute.
The summary is well worth a thorough response, however. The absurdity of the summary, in conjunction
with its resemblance to what Christians actually believe, makes it extremely dangerous. If the Christian
message of salvation is made to appear ridiculous, why embrace any aspect of the Christian faith? If the
gospel itself is an incoherent and illogical mess, what’s the point of defending any other aspect of
Christianity against attacks?
“God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself” mischaracterizes the Trinity, the identity and
nature of Jesus Christ, the substitutionary atonement, and the nature of God’s justice and judgment.
These are not trivial matters. They are the very core of the Christian faith. They absolutely qualify under
Paul’s instruction that we “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of
God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). “In response to Christ’s love for us manifested in his agonizing death,
Christians should invest their lives living for him and his cause on earth. Christ’s death on our behalf
shuts us up to this one eternal significant course of action.”5
God sacrificed himself…
The first three words of the summary communicate substantial theological inaccuracies. They convey
misunderstandings of who died on the cross, in what way it was a sacrifice, and whether that sacrifice
was ultimately even necessary. In just the first three words, several key aspects and implications of the
doctrine of the Trinity are subtly, but at the same time tragically, misrepresented.
First Corinthians 15:3 states, “…Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.” It is absolutely
clear in Scripture that it was Jesus who died on the cross (Matthew 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 19). At
the same time, it has been the consistent teaching of the Church since the Council of Nicea in 325 AD
that Jesus is God incarnate: “We believe in…one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of
the Father, that is, from the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God,
begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father…who for us humans and for our salvation
descended and became incarnate, becoming human…”6
The bishops at the Council of Nicea did not invent the deity of Christ, as some critics and conspiracy
theorists have claimed. Rather, they affirmed what is the distinct teaching of Scripture. The Bible teaches
the deity of Christ, and Christians believed in the deity of Christ prior to the Council of Nicea.7 The
Council of Nicea simply made it “official” and elucidated precisely what Christians should believe about
Jesus’ nature. Even after Nicea, “It took time to create a common theological vocabulary … more work
was needed to set forth the personhood of the Son and the Spirit as distinct from the Father yet
subsisting in the same identical nature.”8
The Bible is abundantly clear on the divinity of Jesus Christ. In John 10:30, Jesus declared, “I and the
Father are one.” The Jews recognized this as a claim of deity (John 10:33). In John 8:58, Jesus used the
divine name “I AM” from the Hebrew Scriptures of Himself. John 1:1, 14 describe Jesus as the Word, who
is God, who became flesh. Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 describe Jesus as “God and Savior.” The apostle
Thomas exclaimed to Jesus “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28). “Jesus is God” is the abundantly evident
and consistently conveyed message of the New Testament.
If Jesus is God, why, then, is it inaccurate to say that God sacrificed himself? The problem is that when
the term “God” is used, the being that most often comes to mind is God the Father, not Jesus Christ. If
the statement was “Jesus sacrificed himself” there would be no issue. It has never been the teaching of
historical/biblical Christianity that Jesus is God the Father. “By his words and works, then, Jesus identifies
himself to be God the Son come in the flesh. Beginning with Jesus’s self-identification, the apostles reach
the same conclusion by interpreting all that Jesus said and did in terms of the plotline developing out of
the Old Testament. So the New Testament completes the entire metanarrative in such a way that the
whole Bible on its own terms presents Jesus as God the Son incarnate.”9
The Bible teaches that the Father is God (John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2), the Son is God (John
1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20), and the Spirit is God (Genesis 1:2; Acts
5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16). The Bible also teaches that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1
Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5). The result of these seemingly contradictory tenets is the
doctrine of the Trinity, which took centuries to fully clarify. It was often in response to false
understandings of the Godhead that forced Trinitarianism to settle on precisely what it did and did not
believe. The most common of all the false understandings of the doctrine of the Trinity is Modalistic
Monarchianism.
Monarchianism “sought to preserve monotheism and thus the divine unity, or monarchia (monos,
one; archos, ruler, source), but to the exclusion of the full and coequal deity of the Son (and
Spirit).”10 Modalistic Monarchianism, also known as Modalism and Sabellianism, is by far the most
popular form of Monarchianism. It preserved monotheism by advocating that the different Persons of
the Trinity were actually the one true God manifesting in three different modes.
“It was suggested that God manifested himself differently in each of the three phases of world history—
as Father in the Old Testament (Creator), as Son in the Gospel period (as Redeemer), and as Spirit since
the time of Pentecost (role of Sanctifier). In this way they denied the personal distinctions between the
Father, Son, and Spirit within the Godhead.”11 Essentially, modalists believe that Father, Son, and Spirit
are different names or titles for the one divine being.
“While modalism offers a way to resolve the apparent paradox between God’s oneness and threeness, it
does so at the expense of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being coequal, simultaneously existing
persons.”12 Modalistic Monarchianism is the most popular Trinitarian heresy, but it was eventually
soundly rejected by the early church. It has endured, though, to varying degrees, and still exists today,
with Oneness Pentecostals being the most well-known modern adherents.13
A distinct implication of Modalism is that God the Father suffered and died on the cross. This is known as
Patripassianism, from the Latin words for “father” and “suffering.” Patripassianism teaches that Jesus
dying on the cross (along with the resurrection, of course) was the crowning act of God’s identity as God
the Son. “This conclusion seemed inescapably to follow from belief in only one divine nature and in
three ‘persons’ as nothing more than different names that designate different roles or activities played at
one time and another.”14 Patripassianism was rejected alongside Modalistic Monarchianism and has
never been a tenet of historical/biblical Christianity.
With the summary in mind, Modalistic Monarchianism, and its resulting implication of Patripassianism,
does in fact teach that God sacrificed himself to himself. Some of the confusion over the “God sacrificed
himself” misunderstanding has sparked conversations within the Christian faith for millennia. Just as the
early church eventually became united over the fact that modalism and Patripassianism were unbiblical,
so do we, today, need to make it clear that those misguided attempts to describe the Trinity are not what
Christians believe.
The consistent teaching of historical/biblical Christianity is that Jesus, God the Son, died on the cross.
Jesus, God the Son, is a distinct Person in the Trinity from God the Father (and God the Holy Spirit). The
distinction between the Persons of the Trinity can be seen in numerous passages of Scripture. At the
baptism of Jesus, Jesus is baptized, the Father speaks from heaven, and the Holy Spirit descends as a
dove (Matthew 3:16-17). In Hebrews 1:8, God the Father says of God the Son, “Your throne, O God, is
forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.” The Son is seated at the
right hand of the Father (Matthew 26:64). Jesus, the Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity, is God,
and yet is distinct from God the Father.
Yes, Jesus is God, and Jesus died on the cross. So, in that sense, yes, God died on the cross. In the
statement “God sacrificed himself,” if by “God” you mean “Jesus,” then yes, God sacrificed himself. But
this is a vitally important distinction to make. Jesus, God the Son, sacrificed himself. God the Father did
not die on the cross. God the Father was not sacrificed. God the Father was the one to whom the
sacrifice was offered.
This also raises the matter of how Jesus Christ, who, as God, is eternal (Psalm 41:13; Revelation
1:8; 22:13), could die. How could the Creator (Colossians 1:16) of life itself die as a sacrifice? This is
where the hypostatic union comes in. The hypostatic union is the theological explanation of how “the
Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).
The hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, that there is no mixture or
dilution of either nature, and that He is one united Person, forever. Jesus, God the Son, was fully human
and fully God. As the God-man, Jesus was not part God and part man, like some sort of Greek demi-god.
No, Jesus was 100 percent God and 100 percent man, true divinity and true humanity (1 John 4:3). “In
Christ, then, we meet God the Son incarnate, fully God and fully man. As Paul describes him, the eternal
Son is now ‘the man Christ Jesus’ (1 Tim. 2:5).”15
God cannot die. A human being can die. That is why Jesus had to be the God-man. He had to be man so
he could die. He had to be God so his death would be sufficient to pay for the sins of the entire world (1
John 2:2). It is the hypostatic union that makes God the Son sacrificing himself possible. God the Father
cannot die. God the Son, with a sinless human nature added to his divine nature, could die, and did die.
Jesus Christ, the God-man, was the absolutely perfect and utterly complete sacrifice for our sins (John
1:29; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 10:10).
Stephen J. Wellum summarizes the theological and practical importance of the hypostatic union in the
incarnation well: “A complete incarnation was the only way that the Son could: (1) rule as God’s
obedient vice-regent over creation; (2) bring many disobedient sons into the glory of his own obedient
vice-regency through sufferings that fit him for the vocation; (3) suffer the death penalty on behalf of the
disobedient, releasing them from fear of death under divine judgment; (4) represent sinners before God
as reconciled to him through the forgiveness of their sins.”16
How could Jesus be God the Son, a distinct Person from God the Father, and yet be equally God as God
the Father? And, in what sense is Jesus God’s Son? Historically, Christians have answered the first
question with the concept of the eternal generation of the Son. Eternal generation is the idea that God
the Father eternally generates or “begets” God the Son (John 3:16) in such a way that God’s essence is
not divided.
There is a communication of the whole, indivisible substance of the Godhead so that God the Son is the
exact representation of God the Father (Hebrews 1:3). Theologian Louis Berkhof summarizes it well: “It is
that eternal and necessary act of the first person in the Trinity, whereby He, within the divine Being, is
the ground of a second personal subsistence like His own, and puts this second person in possession of
the whole divine essence, without any division, alienation, or change.”17
Why, then, is Jesus referred to as the Son of God and God the Son? Somehow, in the mystery of the
Trinity, the eternal generation of the Son, and God the Father’s relationship with God the Son, resembles
the relationship between a human father and son. Now, this resemblance should not be taken too far.
Jesus is not God’s biological son. The miraculous conception of Jesus in Mary was not a sexual union
between God and Mary (Luke 1:35). Further, with a human father and son, there is a time when the
father existed and the son did not. Jesus, God the Son, is co-eternal with God the Father. Jesus has
existed eternally alongside the Father and Holy Spirit.
However, there is some sense in which Jesus’ relationship with the Father truly resembles a father/son
relationship. This is especially important when considering the sacrifice on the cross. The atonement was
not God the Father dispassionately sacrificing himself. No, the atonement was God the Father allowing
his beloved Son, with whom he had been in intimate fellowship for all of eternity, to be brutally
murdered.
In some sense, Jesus dying on the cross caused Him to feel forsaken by God (Psalm 22:1; Matthew
27:46). Something occurred within the Trinity that had never happened before and will never happen
again. It was truly a sacrifice. It was truly God the Father watching his only begotten Son be sacrificed for
the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). Any parent who has lost a child knows how painful it is. In some sense,
that is how it felt for God the Father, as his relationship with God the Son is, to an extent, that of a father
and a son.
It is also vital to clarify that Jesus sacrificed himself willingly. The atonement was not “cosmic child
abuse” as some have suggested.18 The tense of “God sacrificed…” posits God as the one performing the
action, as if God the Father is the one killing the object that is being sacrificed. Sadly, even some
evangelical leaders make this mistake: “The ultimate answer to the question, who crucified Jesus? is:
God did. It is a staggering thought. Jesus was his Son. But the whole Bible leads to this conclusion.”19 This
could not be further from the truth.
In contrast to the idea that God the Father killed his Son, Jesus declares in John 10:17-18, “For this
reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from
me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up
again. This charge I have received from my Father” (emphasis added). Jesus could have prevented his
death (Matthew 26:53). While Jesus did not desire the suffering he was going to experience, he
submitted himself to it (Luke 22:42).
Without Jesus offering himself willingly, Romans 5:7-8 loses the power of its message, “For one will
scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but
God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Jesus’ sacrifice is the
ultimate example of love (John 15:13). That Christ would die for those who are imminently unworthy
makes the sacrifice even greater. And, let’s not diminish the sacrifice God the Father made. He allowed
his beloved Son to be murdered. “It was not God who killed Jesus. It was the murderers who killed Jesus.
It was all humanity, all who are born in Adam. In short, we killed Jesus. The all-knowing, all-loving God
knew that we would reject his Son, yet allowed his death in order for Jesus to become the ultimate once
and for all sacrifice for our sake.”20
The opening clause “God sacrificed himself” is packed with theological implications. To whom is “God”
referring? Was it a legitimate sacrifice? Who was actually sacrificed? Was the sacrifice active or passive?
Christians have answers to these questions and have had those answers for nearly 2,000 years. The
problem is that the answers are complicated. And to an extent, they are wrapped in mystery. Finite
humanity is not capable of fully and perfectly understanding the Trinity. The eternal generation of the
Son and the hypostatic union, while debated, settled, and clarified over the centuries, are still ultimately
beyond our full comprehension.
That is what makes “God sacrificed himself,” and the entire summary, so difficult to refute. There are
good, solid responses to each clause. However, the answers are long and complicated. That makes it
difficult to give a cogent reply. This does not free us, though, from the responsibility to present the
answers in a cohesive and comprehensible manner. We must humbly admit the mystery while also
adamantly rejecting the distortions. “Theologically, a mystery (such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, or the
transcendence of God) is something that does not go against reason, but beyond reason. In short, on the
one hand, it does not violate the law of noncontradiction, and, on the other hand, it is something that,
while we can apprehend it, we cannot completely comprehend it.”21
…to himself…
Like the first clause, the second clause “to himself” is packed with theological implications. To whom was
the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered? Why was a sacrifice necessary? How could the death of Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, pay for the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2)? Clarification as to the nature of Jesus’
atoning sacrifice is crucial.
First, why was a sacrifice necessary? Romans 3:23 states that all have sinned and fallen short of God’s
glory. Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin are death. Simply put, every human being who has ever
lived has sinned, has committed acts that are offensive to a holy God. Because of this sin, we all deserve
death. We not only deserve physical death, the separation of the soul from the body (Genesis 2:17), but
also spiritual death, the eternal separation of the sinner from God (Matthew 25:46; John 3:18,36). This
eternal separation in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15) is the just penalty for sin, which is ultimately
committed against a holy, righteous, and consistently just God (Psalm 51:4).
Jesus, the God-man, who is sinless humanity combined with holy divinity, willingly sacrificed Himself on
the cross. Jesus died for our sins. As man, Jesus could die. As God, His death had infinite value. Jesus’
death on the cross paid the penalty for the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2). With the debt of sin
paid, God offers the gift of salvation and forgiveness to all who trust in Christ (John 3:16; Acts
16:31; Romans 6:23b). Jesus died in our place to save us from the penalty we deserve. Jesus died in our
place as our substitute.
Second, how could the death of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, pay for the sins of the entire world? The
substitutionary atonement is the biblical teaching that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross covers the
punishment we deserve for our sins. Jesus Christ is the substitute, and the punishment He took on the
cross, death, was ours due to our sin (1 Peter 2:24). This satisfies God’s justice, and those who trust in
Christ have their sins forgiven and experience reconciliation with God. “As long as the verdict of
condemnation prevails, sinners lack loving fellowship with the triune God. But since on the ground of
Christ’s perfect sacrifice believers are declared free from sin and guilt, enmity is abolished and
restoration to communion with the God of love becomes a new reality.”22
God’s perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin. Humanity is completely incapable of
atoning for our own sins. Humanity is spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1). Jesus’ sacrifice propitiated, or
satisfied, God’s requirement for justice. It is God’s mercy that allows the death of Jesus to atone for our
sins. Jesus’ sacrifice serves as a substitute for anyone who accepts it, by grace alone, through faith alone
(Ephesians 2:8-9). It was God’s mercy that exchanged Jesus’ perfect life for us (2 Corinthians 5:21).
This “penal substitution” is explicitly clear in Scripture. The substitutionary atonement is foreshadowed
in the Old Testament, described in the gospels, and explained in the New Testament epistles. In Genesis
3:21, after Adam and Eve sinned, God used animal skins to cover them. This is the first reference to a
death being used to cover (atone for) sin. This is the first biblical example of God extending his mercy
towards humanity.
Prior to the exodus from Egypt, God’s judgment passed over the homes that were covered (atoned) by
the blood of a sacrifice (Exodus 12:13). The prophecy about the coming Messiah in Isaiah 53:4–
6 describes him being “crushed for our iniquities.” We deserved to be crushed because of our sins, but
Christ took that penalty in our place, as our substitute.
During His ministry, Jesus describes himself as the “good shepherd” who lays down his life for the sheep
(John 10:10). Romans 3:25–26 declare that because of the sacrifice of Christ, we possess the
righteousness of Christ. 2 Corinthians 5:21 describes it as the sinless Jesus taking on our sin so we could
receive his righteousness. Hebrews 9:26 declares that our sins were removed by the atoning sacrifice of
Jesus Christ. First Peter 3:18 summarizes it well: “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for
the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the
spirit.”
If we must pay the penalty for our sins ourselves, the result is eternal separation from God in hell.
Instead, in our place, God the Son, Jesus Christ, paid the penalty for our sins. Because of his perfect and
sufficient payment, we now have the opportunity for our sins to be forgiven and to spend eternity in
heaven instead of hell (Matthew 25:46). “For the essence of sin is man substituting himself for God,
while the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for man. Man asserts himself against God and
puts himself where only God deserves to be; God [Jesus] sacrifices himself for man and puts himself
where only man deserves to be. Man claims prerogatives that belong to God alone; God accepts
penalties that belong to man alone.”23
In order for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to be credited to our account, we must fully trust in what Christ
did on the cross (Acts 16:31). We are utterly incapable of saving ourselves. We need a substitute, a
Savior. The death of Jesus Christ is that substitutionary atonement.
William Lane Craig says of God’s justice: “God’s graciously accepting a substitute for what we by justice
owed is an expression of God’s mercy toward us. We should not, in any case, think of our sinful condition
primarily on the analogy of the debt owed by a debtor to a creditor, nor of God’s forgiveness in terms of
remission of a debt; rather, our condition is like that of a condemned criminal before the court and
divine forgiveness like a legal pardon…Penal substitution enables God to be both merciful and just.
Because Christ is God Himself, the suffering of the Son in his human nature is ample to satisfy justice’s
demands for humanity.”24
Third, to whom was the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered? At first glance, the answer to this question
seems simple: God. After all, the sacrifices the Old Testament Law required were offered to God. If those
animal sacrifices prefigured the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, and if the sacrifice of Christ
is the fulfillment of those offerings, wouldn’t Jesus’ sacrifice also have to be an offering to God? The
answer is yes, but it requires some clarification.
The necessity of somehow appeasing God’s wrath is something most religions have in common. The idea
that humanity assuages God’s wrath by offering various gifts or sacrifices is a nearly universal aspect of
ancient and modern religions. Unlike other religions, which have humanity offering sacrifices to a god or
gods to somehow satisfy their wrath or curry their favor, the Bible teaches that, through the sacrifice of
Jesus Christ, God himself has provided for our salvation. “It was a sacrifice to end sacrificing, not a
sacrifice to appease the appetite of some angry gods. It was not God who needed the sacrifice of Jesus,
it was we who needed it. And this sacrifice is the means by which God provides us the hope of
everlasting life.”25
In the New Testament, the act of propitiation (the satisfaction of God’s righteous demands) always refers
to the work of God and not the sacrifices or gifts offered by man. Humanity is completely incapable of
satisfying God’s justice except by being eternally separated from him in hell. There is no service,
sacrifice, or gift we could offer to satisfy his perfect justice. In our fallen state, not even our sacrifices are
acceptable to God. Even our righteous acts are filthy rags to God (Isaiah 64:6).
The only satisfaction, or propitiation, that could be acceptable to God and that could reconcile humanity
to him had to be made by God. For this reason, God the Son, Jesus Christ, came into the world in human
flesh to be the perfect sacrifice for sin and to make atonement or “propitiation for the sins of the
people” (Hebrews 2:17).
Jesus’ sacrifice being offered to God is not some sort of self-serving cosmic suicide. Jesus had to sacrifice
himself to God because it was the only satisfactory offering. Only the death of the God-man could satisfy
the righteous demands of a holy God. Everything we do is tainted by sin. Nothing we do is completely
holy. We cannot save ourselves.
Only Jesus, the Son of God, can save us. While Jesus, the God-man, offering himself as the sacrifice to
satisfy the righteous demands of God may sound peculiar to some, in light of our utterly sinful state,
there was no alternative means of providing salvation. “It is God himself who in holy wrath needs to be
propitiated, God himself who in holy love undertook to do the propitiating and God himself who in the
person of his Son died for the propitiation of our sins. Thus God took his own loving initiative to appease
his own righteous anger by bearing it in his own self in his own Son when he took our place and died for
us. There is no cruelty here to evoke our ridicule, only the profundity of holy love to evoke our
worship.”26
…to save us from himself.
The final clause in the summary, “to save us from himself,” is not as much unbiblical in what it explicitly
says as it is in what it implies. If God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself, it all seems
very arbitrary. Did God invent the rule himself that his death would be the only satisfactory payment for
sin? Could he not have declared something else to be the necessary payment? Could he not have just
decided to no longer be angry about our sins, thereby saving us from his wrath? He is God, after all.
Finally, how is the sacrifice of the innocent making payment for the sins of the guilty an example of
justice? No court that is seeking justice would knowingly allow an innocent person to be put to death for
the crimes of the guilty. For some, even the correct understanding of Christian justification seems more
like a miscarriage of justice.
Could God have accomplished salvation another way? If God is saving us from himself, surely he could
have saved us from himself some other way. After all, he is the one making all the rules. The first
implication of “to save us from himself” is that God arbitrarily made up the rules in such a way that only
he could fulfill them.
In response, it is crucial to remember both the relationship between God the Father and God the Son
and the tremendous suffering Jesus endured. While the similarities should not be pushed too far, the
relationship between God the Father and God the Son resembles that of a loving human father and his
only son. What father would allow his son to be killed if there was another way to accomplish what was
required? No, if there was some other way, God would not have sacrificed his beloved son (Matthew
3:17).
Theologian Bruce Demarest writes, “Having freely made the decision to save, God then acted in accord
with his own intrinsic nature and perfections. He operated in harmony with his perfect wisdom,
righteousness, holiness, mercy, and supremely his agapic love. In other words, given his own rules for
how sin would be handled in a moral universe, the course of saving action God chose in light of the
foreseen human situation was the wisest, most righteous, and most loving course possible. In sending
his Son to be bruised and to bear our evils, God gave his highest and best.”27
Further, God did not arbitrarily invent the rules. The “rules” are inherently and inextricably attached to
his nature. As a perfectly holy being, God cannot be in the presence of sin without being revolted by it
and desiring to be separate from it (Isaiah 6:3; Habakkuk 1:13; Revelation 4:8). As a perfectly just being,
God cannot allow evil to go unjudged and unpunished (Exodus 34:7; Proverbs 11:21).
With all sin ultimately committed against God (Psalm 51:5), who is infinite and eternal, only an eternal
separation from God is a just penalty. God could not change this requirement, as he himself is
unchanging and unchangeable (Numbers 23:19; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17). Even if God wanted to declare
some other means to be sufficient for salvation, his holiness, justice, and immutability would prevent
him from doing so.
This may sound strange, saying that an all-powerful God cannot do anything he wants. That is the result
of a misunderstanding of God’s omnipotence. God being omnipotent means that he possesses infinite
power. It does not mean that God can do anything. God’s power is limited by his nature. When the
concept of God’s omnipotence is studied from a biblical perspective, “The picture that emerges is of a
being with unlimited power to do all the things a being with God’s other perfections could possibly do.
He cannot do everything whatsoever, nor is he required to do everything he can do, but anything we
would want or expect a being of God’s character to do, he has power to do. The king who cares has
power to show tangibly that he does care for us!”28
God can do anything that is in harmony with who he is. God can do anything that is holy, just, righteous,
and loving. God cannot do anything that contradicts any of his attributes. That includes declaring a
different means of salvation than what his perfect nature requires.
Finally, how can someone who is innocent pay the penalty for someone who is guilty? How can it be
considered justice for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the God-man, God the Son, the innocent, perfect, and
spotless One, to pay the penalty for the guilty, for sinners, for the ones who committed the crimes and
therefore deserve the punishment?
The penal substitution nature of the atonement was discussed earlier. It describes how Jesus’ death pays
the penalty for our sins. But, how is it just for Jesus to be punished for our sins, “wounded for our
transgressions” and “bruised for our iniquities” (Isaiah 53:5)? After all, Proverbs 17:15 says, “He who
justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.”
How, then, can it be just for God to accept the death of his innocent son as the payment for the sins of
the guilty? God pouring out his wrath on Jesus, who was innocent, instead of on the sinners who deserve
it, does not sound just. Even though Jesus willingly offered himself as our substitute, it is unjust to punish
an innocent person for the crimes of the guilty.
Second Corinthians 5:21 is key: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we
might become the righteousness of God.” Commentator George Guthrie superbly explains the meaning
of 2 Corinthians 5:21: “Christ the sinless One, through identification with us, took sin on himself and
died, serving as our sin sacrifice. We the unrighteous, through relationship with Christ, take on God’s
righteousness, are reconciled to God, and transformed as newly created, new-covenant people in the
world. In other words, because of our identification with Christ, we as the new-covenant people of God
are in right standing before God and are an expression of God’s righteousness before the world.”29
An analogy from the legal system is helpful. When a couple gets married, they assume each other’s
debts. For example, suppose the husband had student debt and the wife had credit card debt before
they got married. In that case, they both become responsible for each other’s debts when they get
married, even though the wife did not incur the student debt and the husband was not responsible for
the credit card charges.
Christ willingly attached himself to the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). If the Calvinistic doctrine of limited
atonement is true, Jesus only died for the sins of the elect, the church, his bride (Ephesians 5:25-27). In
that sense, the marriage analogy is complete. The sin debt of the wife, the church, is transferred to the
husband, Christ. Jesus became responsible for our sin debt when he “married” us. Even without the
doctrine of limited atonement, though, the analogy fits. The two became one. By attaching himself to
humanity, Jesus became responsible for our sin debt and its penalty.
Jesus, who knew no sin, became sin for us. We, who knew no righteousness, received Christ’s
righteousness. Jesus, though innocent, became guilty because of his union with us. We, though guilty,
become innocent because of our union with him. How can God the Father place the sins of the world on
his innocent Son and then punish his Son for those sins? By the Son’s willingness to be united to us, he
was “made to be sin.” Even though he was entirely innocent of sin on his own, due to his union with
sinful humanity, he was, in a mysterious but very real sense, no longer innocent.
Our sin and guilt were imputed to Christ. This is the only way that God’s justice could not be
compromised when his innocent Son was paying the penalty for guilty sinners. Although Christ was
sinless in himself (Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5), he took on the guilt of our sins. He became
our sin. Therefore, it was not unjust for God to punish Jesus for our sins. It was not unrighteous for our
sins to be transferred to Christ, and it was not unjust for his righteousness to be transferred to us.
Shortly before he died on the cross, Jesus cried out “Tetelestai,” (John 19:30), which is usually translated
“it is finished.” It is a Greek accounting term that essentially means “paid in full.” Jesus’ death on the
cross paid our sin debt in full. He became sin for us, paid for that sin, and thereby freed us from
it. Tetelestai is in the perfect tense, which indicates an action completed in the past but with continuing
results in the present and into the future. Our sin debt being paid was accomplished in the past. It is
done. It is finished. It is complete. The fact that our sin debt was paid has the continuing results that we
continue to be free from debt, we continue to have access to Christ’s righteousness, and we continue to
be justified in God’s sight.
This tension regarding the justice of God’s plan is not something that has been just recently discovered.
The apostle Paul mentions it in Romans 3:25-26, “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,
through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness,
because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to
demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who
have faith in Jesus.” How God can be both just and the justifier has been a struggle for believers,
theologians, and skeptics alike.
How can God be righteous and at the same time declare righteous those who are not righteous? It
would be righteous for God to pour out his wrath on sinners. It would be unrighteous for God to ignore
that sinners deserve punishment. God could not have chosen the latter. He could have chosen the
former. Instead, he chose to pour out his wrath on his beloved Son, who had become our substitute.
“Paul’s point is that God can maintain his righteous character (‘his righteousness’ in vv. 25 and 26) even
while he acts to justify sinful people (‘God’s righteousness’ in vv. 21 and 22) because Christ, in his
propitiatory sacrifice, provides full satisfaction of the demands of God’s impartial, invariable justice.”30
Christ bore God’s wrath, thereby turning it away from us. “By juxtaposing the ‘unpunished,’ or ‘passed
over’ sins of the past with the shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross, it is natural to adopt a reading of
Christ’s sacrifice that includes the idea of divine judgment poured out on human sin. If what was
previously ‘passed over’ was punishment, then it would stand to reason that this penal judgment was
not bypassed but ‘poured out’ at the cross. For this reason, God is both just and the one who justifies
the ungodly (Rom 4:5).”31
Christ is our propitiation. He perfectly satisfied God’s holy wrath against sin. Because of the Father’s love
for us (John 3:16), and Christ’s love for us (John 15:13), Jesus absorbed the punishment that was
rightfully ours, so that we can be “justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus” (Romans 3:24). As a result, God is perfectly just and righteous in declaring righteous those who
have faith in Jesus. “The problem is not outside of God; it is within his own being.. Because God never
contradicts himself, he must be himself and ‘satisfy’ himself, acting in absolute consistency with the
perfection of his character.”32
Conclusion and Application
Did God sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself? The clear and consistent message from
historical/biblical Christianity is a resounding “no.” Every clause in the summary has biblical, theological,
and philosophical misunderstandings. Sometimes the errors are explicit, and at other times, they are
implicit.
The difficulty with the summary is that it resembles what Christians believe, just enough to cause
confusion. Each clause is, at least at first glance, sufficiently similar to what the Christian faith actually
espouses to result in some people thinking, “Yes, that is what Christians believe, and yes, that sounds
absurd.” If the gospel itself is absurd, the words of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:19 apply, “…we
[Christians] are of all people most to be pitied.”
As was explained above, none of the clauses in the summary accurately represent what Christians
believe or have ever believed about God’s means of providing salvation. Still, two issues remain. First, if
the summary is not an accurate statement, what would be an accurate synopsis of what Christians
believe about salvation? Second, how should Christians respond when the summary, or something
similar to it, is brought into a conversation?
The difficulty in attempting to summarize something briefly is that important content almost always has
to be withheld. Many truths simply cannot be condensed into a sound byte without doing a tremendous
disservice to the original message. This is true with the Christian doctrine of salvation. It is simple
enough that a child can understand it, yet it possesses enough theological depth to keep theologians
pondering for their entire lifetimes. No one-sentence condensation of the gospel message is going to
adequately cover all of the theologically richness and beauty that exists in God’s provision of salvation.
A biblically and theologically accurate revision of the summary would read something like, “Jesus, God in
the flesh, sacrificed himself to pay the penalty we deserve for our sins, thereby saving us from
ourselves.” This clarifies who was sacrificed, why a sacrifice was required, what the sacrifice covered,
and what was the result of the sacrifice. It isn’t perfect or absolutely complete, but it is far more accurate
than the summary.
How should Christians respond when the summary is employed by an atheist/critic or is presented by
someone whose faith has been shaken? The first step would be a clear statement indicating that the
summary is not what Christians believe or have ever believed. The summary may sound similar to what
Christians believe, and to someone unfamiliar with the tenets of the Christian faith, it may even sound
the same. In actuality, though, it is far removed from what Christians truly believe.
The second step would be an admission that there are some complicated and mysterious aspects of the
Christian faith. As finite human beings, we should not expect to fully or perfectly understand the nature
or activities of an infinite and eternal God. This is not an escape hatch or an encouragement to “turn off
your brain and just believe.” Rather, it is a humble admission that we should not expect to understand
everything about God and we must be willing to humbly accept that lack of perfect understanding.
The third step would be a point-by-point explanation of what Christians actually believe. Most
atheists/critics will not be truly interested in hearing the tenets of Christian soteriology. Likely some who
use the summary as an attack against the Christian faith already know it is not an accurate synopsis. They
are employing the summary as an attack, an attempt to make Christians and Christianity look ridiculous.
So, this third step requires discernment. Is the person legitimately interested in hearing the explanation?
If not, attempting to clarify the core doctrines of the Christian faith will be akin to casting pearls before
swine (Matthew 7:6).
If the person is genuinely interested, taking the time to clearly and carefully defend God’s provision of
salvation is well worth the time and effort. Explaining the Trinity, while embracing the mystery therein, is
key. Clarifying who Jesus is and why he needed to be fully God and fully man can be complex, but it is
amazing when the full picture is grasped.
Describing why a sacrifice was necessary to atone for our sins and how Jesus was the only acceptable
substitute is the very heart of the gospel. Expounding on why God’s provision of salvation is not
arbitrary, but rather the only way a holy and righteous God could save unrighteous and helpless sinners,
is an amazing journey into the mercy, grace, and love of God.
No, God did not sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself. But yes, the challenges and
opportunities the summary presents are well-worth the effort. It gives us an opening to declare the
gospel in all its fullness. It provides us with an opportunity to strengthen our own understanding of some
of the more complicated aspects of the Christian faith. It reminds us of the need to trust God even when
his nature and/or plan seem unusual to our finite minds. It presents us with the tremendous privilege of
worshiping the God who has provided so great a salvation (Hebrews 2:3) in such a sacrificial, loving, and
beautiful way.
S.Mwansa
Return to:
shadreckmwansachishalla1234@gmail.com.blog homepage
Did God sacrifice Himself to Himself to save us from Himself?
My testimony...
I had questions, the Bible had the answers!
Huh?
© Copyright 2018-2023 My testimony. All rights reserved.
By Shadreck .C. Mwansa