“The Passion of Jesus Christ” is a thin book that gives John Piper's 50 reasons that Jesus suffered and died. Piper excludes all human reasons (why Judas betrayed him, why the Jewish leadership put him on trial, why the Roman government executed him) as unimportant. He says that because God wanted Jesus to suffer and die, any human motivations are insignificant. A subtitle that Piper would find appropriate could be “50 reasons God the Father wanted Jesus dead and Jesus Christ submitted to that death”.
I attempted to read this book as a devotional during Lent. I read it every morning and finished the book. But I was so disturbed by Piper's portrayal of God that it was difficult to focus on devotion. It would be tedious to list all my objections, so I'll focus on the 1st of Piper's 50 reasons.
The 1st reason Piper highlights for the Father wanting Jesus to die is “To Absorb the Wrath of God.” God's wrath against us and Jesus is of fundamental importance to Piper – he repeats the word “wrath” 7 times in this page, 3 more times in his 2nd reason, again in his 3rd and 4th reasons, and throughout the whole book (in fact, he saves the most repetition for his 47th reason, when he uses “wrath” 8 more times!).
This gets into a problem. Piper claims in the introduction that “My aim is to let the Bible speak.” Yet the Bible is consistently hidden behind Piper's theological structure. Piper generally limits his quotes to a single verse or less, ignoring the context. He treats the New Testament like a series of proof-texts rather than complete pictures. And still the "proof-texts" fail to prove Piper's case.
In this instance, none of the Bible passages Piper uses for Reason #1 have the word “wrath” in them, except when Piper himself inserts “wrath-absorbing” into 1 John 4:10! Of course, nowhere in the New Testament is the death of Jesus connected with God's wrath being applied to Jesus. So if Piper is letting the Bible speak, why does he take something the Bible never says as one of his primary points?
Similarly, Piper's very first sentence is “If God were not just, there would be no demand for his Son to suffer and die.” Piper also repeats “just” or “justice” 7 times on this page, driving home the claim that God's justice required that Jesus die. Once again, none of the Bible passages he quotes mention God's justice at all...because nowhere in the New Testament is it stated that Jesus's death was a necessary result of God's justice. Nor is there anywhere in the Bible where it states that God made a demand for his son to suffer and die.
In fact, Jesus's death was clearly unjust. Jesus was the innocent victim. He had never sinned. He was not guilty of the capital charges brought against him. The trials were a farce. That injustice is a clear theme of the Gospel accounts and the disciples' testimonies in Acts. 1 Peter 2 (which Piper himself later quotes!) talks about Christ's response to his unjust condemnation as a model for us.
But Piper ignores the aspect of injustice in Jesus's death. Instead, he focuses on “justice” by making it a synonym for “punishment”. Not only in this 1st point, but throughout the book, Piper refers to punishment alone when speaking about justice. The idea of justice as "setting things right" or rectifying injustices is ignored. There's no mention of the lasting effects of the sin or needing to deal with the consequences of sin. To Piper, the only thing that matters for “justice” to be enacted is for someone to be punished.
Piper states that since God tortured and killed Jesus, “God's wrath is just, and it was spent, not withdrawn”. In Piper's framework, God was offended, God must deliver punishment because he was offended, and who he punishes is less important than the punishment itself. Piper gives God the attributes of the worst dictator – crimes were committed, so someone better be put to death. Stopping the crimes from being committed, addressing the effects of the crimes, making right the victims of the crime, and even executing the correct person are all secondary to the primary concern that someone gets executed.
Piper has this focus on “wrath” and “justice” because he is indebted to Anselm's medieval construct of atonement (in fact, Piper takes the language further than Anselm ever did). But not only is Piper's language based on later theology rather than the New Testament, it doesn't make logical sense. How could the justice of God demand that the innocent suffer and die? This was Piper's best attempt to prove his case:
“There is a holy curse hanging over all sin. Not to punish would be unjust. The demeaning of God would be endorsed. A lie would reign over the core of reality.”
Wait...if "not to punish" would be a lie reigning over the core of reality...wouldn't punishing a innocent man be an even greater lie? Piper has caught himself in a logic trap, so he is saying things that make no sense, don't proceed from the Bible, and don't reflect the nature of the God we know through Jesus Christ. If Piper's construct is what God did, then we can't use the English word “justice” to refer to it, because “justice” has a real meaning in the English language and killing an innocent man does not fit that meaning.
A few more things just from that 1st point....
* Piper claims “The seriousness of an insult rises with the dignity of the one insulted.” That sort of feudal mindset is contradictory to the Gospel – in Jesus's kingdom, a sin against a homeless man or a child is just as bad as a sin against a pastor or an elder.
* Piper quotes “you must love the Lord your God” but omits “you must love your neighbor”, starting the book-long trend of focusing on sin as individualistic and against God, and generally ignoring our relationships with other people except for a couple passages near the end of the book.
* Piper declares that “propitiation” in Romans 3:25 refers to “the removal of God's wrath”, even though this is debated as such use is only found in pagan texts, and “mercy seat” is what the word hilasteron is used to mean in Greek translations of the Old Testament.
The fact that there were so many issues in just the first point, spanning barely more than a page, gives you an indication of how the whole book went for me. Rather than breaking down every point (and there were a few good points), I'll just highlight a few of the problems that I encountered in the rest of the book.
Point 2: Some people criticize certain versions of atonement theology as supporting “divine child abuse”, and say that those theological constructs make it easy for families to sanction their own child abuse. I usually think this critique is overwrought, but I've never seen someone try as hard to portray God as an abusive father as Piper does here:
“On the one hand, the suffering of Christ is an outpouring of God's wrath because of sin. But on the other hand, Christ's suffering is a beautiful act of submission and obedience to the will of the Father. So Christ cried from the cross, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'. And yet the Bible says that the suffering of Christ was a fragrance to God....Oh, that we might worship the terrible wonder of the love of God!”
I disagree with the entire train of thought. Jesus felt like God left him, NOT that God was torturing/killing him. And it was Jesus's love and sacrifice that was a fragrance to God, NOT his suffering. To imagine Jesus's suffering as a beautiful fragrance that God enjoyed distorts the New Testament. Piper twists the meaning of love here so much that it's possible to imagine a father inflicting suffering on his child, enjoying the fragrance of that suffering, and teaching the child that to submit to such abuse is his proper Christ-like place and the only way he will ever be holy. I don't believe that Piper believes that, but it's easy to see how Piper's wording would lend itself to that interpretation in certain ears.
Point 8: Piper says that Jesus was a ransom for many...and then claims that Jesus ransomed us from God! I disagree with Piper here – people who are not following Christ are allied against God, not with God. They are under the Lord of this world, not the Lord of Heaven. Jesus did NOT need to pay God a ransom to save them. As Piper acknowledges, the Bible never says that Jesus paid a ransom to God, and in the Bible the focus is on the paying of the ransom and not on who the ransom was to. For Piper to focus on the claim that Jesus ransomed us from God is non-Biblical.
Point 13: Piper claims that Jesus died “To Abolish Circumcision and All Rituals as the Basis of Salvation”. This falsely assumes that ritual was ever the basis of salvation (God's covenant faithfulness was always the basis of salvation), and it also ignores the place of baptism and communion in Christianity, rituals that are still clearly affirmed by Jesus.
On a related note, the minor critique of Israel here highlights that the word “Israel” is almost completely missing from the entire book. In talking about why Jesus died, I would think that him being Israel's messiah, the King of the Jews dying a representative death for all Israel, would be fundamental, but Piper ignores the entire story of Israel except for using a couple of OT proof-texts.
Point 16: Piper refers to people who cut themselves or commit self injury as doing so due to a “guilty conscience”.
Point 20: Piper uses “tattoos” as his one example of a guilty enslaving fad, another sin against God.
Point 24: Piper states “Without Christ the holiness of God had to be protected from us.” I think this is a poor misinterpretation of what was going on – God's holiness is not weak, it never had to be “protected” from anything. Again, this smacks of medieval feudalism, where dignified people are so high above us that our very presence will damage their image.
Point 29: Piper states that “sin ruins us in two ways”, then states that those two ways are that we are guilty before God and we disfigure the image of God. As he does in many other places, this ignores so many aspects of sin and its effect on ourselves and others.
Point 41: Piper states that our resurrection was secured by Jesus's death, even though all the Bible passages he uses state that our resurrection is guaranteed by Jesus's resurrection. Piper than minimizes Jesus's resurrection, stating that Jesus's death had already taken care of everything. As he has said throughout the book (most specifically in Point 4), the only point of the resurrection was to publicly declare what Jesus's death had done. “All that was left to accomplish was the public declaration of God's endorsement.” This ignores everything else the resurrection did (Among many others, publicly declaring that Jesus's life was in the right.)
In the end, I really can't recommend this book to anyone. I think it presents a sad distortion of who God is, and a misunderstanding of Jesus Christ and what his life, death, and resurrection meant.