Ancient people lived in a world full of gods. They were present in storms, in the seas, in illness, in crops, in human destinies. The divine was not somewhere beyond nature; it was woven into the very fabric of existence. The gods possessed enormous power, but they were not necessarily moral exemplars. They were jealous, competitive, punitive, deceitful, and demanding of worship. People offered them sacrifices in the hope of gaining protection and favor.
Antiquity also knew of suffering gods. Prometheus stole fire for humankind and was brutally punished by Zeus. Osiris was slain by Set. In one mythological tradition Dionysus was torn apart. Heracles endured a painful death and was deified. So the idea of a suffering deity was not entirely novel.
What was unusual about the Christian proclamation was something else. Prometheus suffered by opposing a more powerful Zeus. But Christians claimed that in Jesus the highest God himself—the source of all being—was at work. Who could force him to suffer? Who proved stronger? Why did he not destroy his enemies, call down heavenly forces, or save himself?
The Apostle Paul understood this problem well: “We preach Christ crucified—unto the Jews a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishness.” Crucifixion was a shameful execution, intended primarily for slaves and the lowly. To combine such an end with supreme divine dignity overturned the usual hierarchy of values.
One should not imagine that all of antiquity was struck by divine love. Some mocked the crucified teacher, others saw in him a religious innovator, still others compared him with mythic heroes. Yet for many people the story of Jesus had a profound impact. The Christian philosopher Justin Martyr in the second century even employed tales about the sons of Zeus to make the story of Jesus more comprehensible to a pagan audience. Ancient mythology could not answer the question: if Jesus truly represented the highest divine authority, why did he voluntarily accept a martyr’s death at the hands of insignificant mortals?
The question of Jesus’ death is usually posed like this: why did God require a sacrifice? Why could he not forgive humanity without blood? Over the centuries many theories of atonement arose: ransom, satisfaction of justice, substitutionary sacrifice, victory over death, restoration of human nature.
But there is another line of reasoning. Jesus’ death was not a necessary condition preordained by God for forgiving people. It was a predictable consequence of what happens when a personality embodying absolute love finds itself within a society built on fear, domination, rivalry, and coercion.
Jesus did not merely speak about love. He consistently acted according to it. He drew near to the outcast, forgave sinners, broke habitual social boundaries, and refused to answer hate with hate. His behavior called into question the mechanisms of power used by religious and social institutions.
The conflict grew ever sharper. Yet Jesus did not abandon his character even in the face of death. When the disciples wanted to call down fire on a Samaritan village that had rejected him, he forbade them. When they came to arrest him, he refused to defend himself by force, though he spoke of being able to summon legions of angels. On the cross he prayed for the forgiveness of those who were crucifying him.
If this is so, then God does not demand Jesus’ death to satisfy his own justice. People kill Jesus because his way of life clashes with theirs. And Jesus accepts the consequences without renouncing himself.
Here a parallel with Prometheus from mythology emerges. The Titan suffered because he helped people against Zeus’s will. Jesus suffered because he continued to love people despite their hostility. In the first case a merciful deity opposes the supreme god. In the second, the supreme divine love collides with human resistance. It is not an evil god but an evil humanity.
Historically, the crucifixion of Jesus was connected to specific religious convictions and elements of his teaching. One cannot reduce his execution solely to an abstract clash of love and violence. But on a theological level such a clash helps explain why Jesus did not use power to save himself. God could have defeated his opponents, but victory over an opponent and winning his love are two entirely different things.
Over two thousand years not only the world has changed but also the way people perceive reality. The ancient person might have seen a storm as the action of a deity, illness as the influence of spiritual forces, an unusual event as supernatural intervention. Modern science explains these phenomena through physical, chemical, and biological processes. Gods have ceased to be necessary participants in everyday explanations.
This does not mean that the modern person has necessarily stopped believing. Rather, the place of God in his worldview has shifted. God has been moved beyond observable nature—into the realm of first cause, a transcendent intelligence, nonmaterial reality, or the source of cosmic laws.
Philosopher Charles Taylor described such a change as a shift from a “enchanted world” to a secular consciousness. Humans learned to perceive nature as a self-sufficient system functioning without constant appeal to supernatural explanations. At the same time the scientific picture of the world altered human self-understanding. Earth turned out to be a small planet near an ordinary star. The observable universe is about 13.8 billion years old. Human life occupies an almost negligible place in cosmic history.
But not only the scales changed. Modern civilization has placed at the forefront personal autonomy, freedom of choice, psychological boundaries, and the right of the individual to dispose of his own life. At the same time it has created powerful instruments of control: political institutions, mass propaganda, surveillance technologies, algorithms that influence behavior. Here there is a new opportunity to hear the ancient story.
A modern person is no longer easily shaken by tales of gods descending from the heavens to hurl thunderbolts or control nature. But what if there is a being of absolute power who voluntarily refuses to use that power to subjugate human consciousness?
Imagine the source of all reality—an infinite mind with access to the laws of matter, space, time, and all the secrets of human consciousness. Before such a being a single person seems negligible. Yet God grants that person a remarkable right: to accept him freely—or to reject him.
He could have created a perfect worshiper, preprogrammed for devotion. He could have removed all doubt, reshaped desires, suppressed resistance, made love inevitable. But then the essential thing would disappear: the person’s autonomous decision.
Instead, according to Jesus’ teaching, God acts differently. He comes to the person, reveals his character, invites cooperation, but permits refusal. Even if that refusal takes the form of hatred and crucifixion. Two paradoxes converge here.
The first is the paradox of omnipotence. God is so powerful that he can allow a person not to obey him. His power does not require coerced recognition. The second is the paradox of human significance. God, before whom the scale of human life is negligible, voluntarily accepts human vulnerability, suffering, and death. He shows that the value of a person is not measured by physical size, social standing, or usefulness. These two paradoxes form one concept: divine greatness is expressed in voluntary self-limitation for the sake of another’s free existence.
God does not merely “tolerate” human refusal. He seeks to remove everything that prevents a person from responding freely with love: fear, ignorance, mistrust, inner brokenness. Yet there is a principled boundary between removing obstacles and removing the unwillingness itself. A person can understand the truth, see the good, grasp the consequences—and still say, “I don’t want to.” If this is a final, autonomous decision, forcibly changing it would destroy the very freedom for which God allowed individual persons to exist.
Therefore God’s love does not guarantee reciprocity—not because it lacks power, but because reciprocity produced by coercion ceases to be reciprocity. The story of the crucifixion has a definite psychological content. Jesus not only demonstrates how deeply God loves humanity; he shows how far God is willing to go without violating human freedom.
Contemporary culture often equates strength with control and success with achieving the desired outcome. But in the figure of Jesus the greatest strength is displayed in the capacity not to use power against another, even when the other uses power to destroy you. That does not mean that love always requires passivity in the face of violence. Protecting victims and restraining aggressors can be necessary expressions of love. The point here is precisely the refusal to coerce a person into inner assent, faith, or love.
Leave a Reply