What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus Unforsaken: Substituting Divine Wrath With Unrelenting Love
What if Jesus didn't die to save us from God?
The doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is not the Gospel. It's a theory that originated in the 1500s under John Calvin. The damage done by this teaching is still being felt today. It's time to abandon this toxic theology in favor of a Christ-centered view of the cross that sets us free from sin and unveils a God of love who would rather die than live without us.
The doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is not the Gospel. It's a theory that originated in the 1500s under John Calvin. The damage done by this teaching is still being felt today. It's time to abandon this toxic theology in favor of a Christ-centered view of the cross that sets us free from sin and unveils a God of love who would rather die than live without us.
206 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 23, 2021
41 people are currently reading
68 people want to read
About the author
Keith Giles
66 books96 followersKeith Giles is the author of 5 books including his latest, "This Is My Body:Ekklesia as God Intended" which explores God's design for His Church according to the scriptures. The free e-book version has been downloaded by over 3,000 people.
He is the former Director of Sales and Distribution for Vineyard Music Group and formerly Marketing Coordinator for Soul Survivor USA. He has been writing articles on the Christian subculture, the house church movement, spiritual formation, compassion ministry and the Kingdom of God for over 20 years now.
His articles have appeared in over a dozen print and online magazines over the last 20 years, including Relevant, 7 Ball, Channel Advisor, Fuse, CCM, Worship Musician Magazine, WorshipMusic.com and theOoze.com.
Keith and his wife Wendy and their two sons are part of a house church community called “The Mission” in Orange, California. They planted this church in their home in 2006 in order to share 100 percent of the offering to help the poor in their community.
Feel free to visit him online at http://www.KeithGiles.com.
He is the former Director of Sales and Distribution for Vineyard Music Group and formerly Marketing Coordinator for Soul Survivor USA. He has been writing articles on the Christian subculture, the house church movement, spiritual formation, compassion ministry and the Kingdom of God for over 20 years now.
His articles have appeared in over a dozen print and online magazines over the last 20 years, including Relevant, 7 Ball, Channel Advisor, Fuse, CCM, Worship Musician Magazine, WorshipMusic.com and theOoze.com.
Keith and his wife Wendy and their two sons are part of a house church community called “The Mission” in Orange, California. They planted this church in their home in 2006 in order to share 100 percent of the offering to help the poor in their community.
Feel free to visit him online at http://www.KeithGiles.com.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
April 13, 2022
Did Christ die for our sins to save us from God's wrath? Keith Giles says No in Jesus Unforesaken.
When I first read the book, I found it generally persuasive, at least in part because I wanted it to be true. During a second reading, however, I more carefully examined his contentions. It now seems to me that scripture does not conform to his thesis as neatly as he'd have it.
So which Giles claims are dubious? The first is that Jesus did not have to die so that our sins would be forgiven.
Giles makes some good points: Jesus did not teach that God required a blood sacrifice, nor is it found in the four gospels. The current atonement theory is a relatively recent development. It was preceded by several atonement theories in the previous 1,500 years. It wasn't until the Reformation about 1500 that
John Calvin originated the Penal Substitution theory, which has become standard Christian doctrine.
Giles describes the PST as the "fulfillment of a sacrificial system that required blood to appease the wrath of a Holy God...Jesus died to satisfy God’s wrath against our sins and was punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. Because of Jesus’ death, God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner."
That is what Giles rejects, and he invokes the Bible to support his rejection. He asks, "Did God really sacrifice Himself to Himself to appease Himself and save humanity from Himself?"
Gileś alternative to the PSA theory is, "God does not require a blood sacrifice as payment for our sins. God does not need anything to happen before we can be forgiven or loved or welcomed into His Divine presence. The crucifixion was necessary, not to change God’s mind about us, but to change our minds about God...Christ endures the cross, not instead of us, but as us; not as our substitute but as the God who is inseparably united with all humanity."
On the other hand, Christians say Jesus was fulfilling prophecy and often cite Isaiah 53:5, which states,
"But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed."
Perhaps this prophecy isn't about Jesus after all. If Isaiah 53 in fact is prophecy about Jesus, however, that suggests he was punished for our transgressions.
Paul taught that Jesus saved us from God's wrath:
"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."
(Romans 5:8-9 NASB2020)
"Who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification." - Rom. 4:25
"And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."
- Eph 5:2
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures." - 1Cor 15:3
Here's a related Giles assertion: "Wrath is not an attribute of God’s nature. Vengeance is not a reflection of God’s heart." To sustain this contention, Giles has to dismiss large parts of the Bible. Such as the great flood that nearly wiped out humanity, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, plagues with which God punished sinful Hebrews, and so on.
Then there is the final book of the Bible. Here is how New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman describes Revelation:
""The love of God – for anyone or anything – is never mentioned in the book, not once. Instead the book celebrates judgment, bloody vengeance, and divine wrath – not love, mercy, forgive- ness, or reconciliation. In the end, the Lamb who was once bloodied avenges his blood a thousand-fold. For John, Christ came the first time in meekness, but he is coming back in power. History will be guided by the vengeance and wrath of God and his Lamb."
In short, Revelation clearly conflicts with the God-is-not-wrathful thesis. Giles casually dismisses Revelation by saying it's an oxymoron to have a violent lamb because everyone knows lambs aren't violent. The problem is if some parts of scripture aren't to be taken seriously, then why should other parts be taken literally?
God's anger is mentioned frequently in scripture. Here are a few examples:
"I trampled them in my anger and trod them down in my wrath; their blood spattered my garments, and I stained all my clothing." ~ Isa 6:3
"Therefore I will deal with them in anger; I will not look on them with pity or spare them. Although they shout in my ears, I will not listen to them." ~ Eze 8:18
"Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty."
~ Rev. 19:15
Giles responds to such verses this way: "To the wrathful God appears wrathful, but to the merciful God appears merciful. In other words: Wrath is more about our projection onto God our own wrathful nature and not about who God actually is."
So God's wrath is just a psychological projection of angry Christians. Verses describing God's "wrath" really don't mean what they say. It's another example of declaring invalid inconvenient parts of scripture.
With a superficial reading,
this book is persuasive. The problem is that Giles either dismisses as invalid biblical passages that conflict with his thesis, or else he makes a strained interpretation so the verses don't mean what they say. That arbitrary method implies that if large parts of scripture aren't valid, then why should we assume that parts he agrees with are valid?
In sum, Giles raises good questions about the PST, though he falls short of disproving it. -30-
When I first read the book, I found it generally persuasive, at least in part because I wanted it to be true. During a second reading, however, I more carefully examined his contentions. It now seems to me that scripture does not conform to his thesis as neatly as he'd have it.
So which Giles claims are dubious? The first is that Jesus did not have to die so that our sins would be forgiven.
Giles makes some good points: Jesus did not teach that God required a blood sacrifice, nor is it found in the four gospels. The current atonement theory is a relatively recent development. It was preceded by several atonement theories in the previous 1,500 years. It wasn't until the Reformation about 1500 that
John Calvin originated the Penal Substitution theory, which has become standard Christian doctrine.
Giles describes the PST as the "fulfillment of a sacrificial system that required blood to appease the wrath of a Holy God...Jesus died to satisfy God’s wrath against our sins and was punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. Because of Jesus’ death, God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner."
That is what Giles rejects, and he invokes the Bible to support his rejection. He asks, "Did God really sacrifice Himself to Himself to appease Himself and save humanity from Himself?"
Gileś alternative to the PSA theory is, "God does not require a blood sacrifice as payment for our sins. God does not need anything to happen before we can be forgiven or loved or welcomed into His Divine presence. The crucifixion was necessary, not to change God’s mind about us, but to change our minds about God...Christ endures the cross, not instead of us, but as us; not as our substitute but as the God who is inseparably united with all humanity."
On the other hand, Christians say Jesus was fulfilling prophecy and often cite Isaiah 53:5, which states,
"But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed."
Perhaps this prophecy isn't about Jesus after all. If Isaiah 53 in fact is prophecy about Jesus, however, that suggests he was punished for our transgressions.
Paul taught that Jesus saved us from God's wrath:
"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."
(Romans 5:8-9 NASB2020)
"Who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification." - Rom. 4:25
"And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God."
- Eph 5:2
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures." - 1Cor 15:3
Here's a related Giles assertion: "Wrath is not an attribute of God’s nature. Vengeance is not a reflection of God’s heart." To sustain this contention, Giles has to dismiss large parts of the Bible. Such as the great flood that nearly wiped out humanity, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, plagues with which God punished sinful Hebrews, and so on.
Then there is the final book of the Bible. Here is how New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman describes Revelation:
""The love of God – for anyone or anything – is never mentioned in the book, not once. Instead the book celebrates judgment, bloody vengeance, and divine wrath – not love, mercy, forgive- ness, or reconciliation. In the end, the Lamb who was once bloodied avenges his blood a thousand-fold. For John, Christ came the first time in meekness, but he is coming back in power. History will be guided by the vengeance and wrath of God and his Lamb."
In short, Revelation clearly conflicts with the God-is-not-wrathful thesis. Giles casually dismisses Revelation by saying it's an oxymoron to have a violent lamb because everyone knows lambs aren't violent. The problem is if some parts of scripture aren't to be taken seriously, then why should other parts be taken literally?
God's anger is mentioned frequently in scripture. Here are a few examples:
"I trampled them in my anger and trod them down in my wrath; their blood spattered my garments, and I stained all my clothing." ~ Isa 6:3
"Therefore I will deal with them in anger; I will not look on them with pity or spare them. Although they shout in my ears, I will not listen to them." ~ Eze 8:18
"Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty."
~ Rev. 19:15
Giles responds to such verses this way: "To the wrathful God appears wrathful, but to the merciful God appears merciful. In other words: Wrath is more about our projection onto God our own wrathful nature and not about who God actually is."
So God's wrath is just a psychological projection of angry Christians. Verses describing God's "wrath" really don't mean what they say. It's another example of declaring invalid inconvenient parts of scripture.
With a superficial reading,
this book is persuasive. The problem is that Giles either dismisses as invalid biblical passages that conflict with his thesis, or else he makes a strained interpretation so the verses don't mean what they say. That arbitrary method implies that if large parts of scripture aren't valid, then why should we assume that parts he agrees with are valid?
In sum, Giles raises good questions about the PST, though he falls short of disproving it. -30-
March 23, 2021
Keith has done it again. He has taken something so intertwined into the modern-day church culture and flipped it on its head. Keith has the ability to get right to the heart of the matter and expose the misunderstandings, mistranslations, and the flat-out lies the church has been holding onto and preaching from for years. Jesus Unforsaken goes after one of the strongest held beliefs of the evangelical fundamentalist church. Penal Substitutionary Atonement or PSA. Keith shows that they go as far as to preach this as if it was the gospel itself. In this book, Keith digs deep into the history of PSA, why it wasn’t the predominant theory of the church in its first 1000 years. Get this book today. It will open your eyes to some of the lies the church has been spewing at us for years. My only recommendation is that you find a comfortable place to sit and read. Because once you start reading this book, you won’t want to stop.
May 16, 2021
Incredible book!
Keith Giles does it again. He dismantles another widely-held belief, bit not with just abject criticism... he uses GOOD theology and reasoned argument against something so deeply ingrained in us that reading this can actually hurt! There's a part of us that has been fed PSA so much that we cling to it in a Stockholm Syndrome-like bond.
This is SO much better to read than the usual theology.
Keith Giles does it again. He dismantles another widely-held belief, bit not with just abject criticism... he uses GOOD theology and reasoned argument against something so deeply ingrained in us that reading this can actually hurt! There's a part of us that has been fed PSA so much that we cling to it in a Stockholm Syndrome-like bond.
This is SO much better to read than the usual theology.
June 22, 2021
A much welcome work in a deeply deluded Christian publishing landscape
So many people believe in a god, that if true, would easily thwart Satan in evil designs and results. Thank God that such a dark Janus faced deity does NOT exist! Excellent book! Read this and rejoice in the actual GOOD NEWS!
So many people believe in a god, that if true, would easily thwart Satan in evil designs and results. Thank God that such a dark Janus faced deity does NOT exist! Excellent book! Read this and rejoice in the actual GOOD NEWS!
August 25, 2022
I tried to explain Easter to my son and found that penal substitution atonement theory just did not cohere with the God we know and love. And so I read this book! I feel this paradigm shift brought me closer to God and will hopefully help me better imitate Him. I'd recommend to those trying to make sense of the "wrathful God".
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews