The following was written in response to a post in the online Biblical Studies Academy entitled “Is Jesus’ Sacrifice Really the Ultimate Act of Love?” It questioned the uniqueness or extremeness of the crucifixion.
I take it back to the story of the goodness of the Creator at the beginning, though “goodness” here means the purging of that which is no longer good, which may be one thing one can mean by “justice.” The same story has a thread that sometimes seems to depict the Creator as distraught at the need to dispense justice. The dilemma before the divine is how to maximize what is good, a dilemma we are familiar with when assigning and rationalizing the consequences of crimes.
Sacrifices, as noted, are pointless, in and of themselves, if “One alone is good” — how can the punishment of one thing that is condemned cover the condemnation of another? — unless they are faith vehicles to transport something that is efficacious.
The only payment that can possibly logically work to serve both justice and love would be by the One of whom it is not required. So the significance of the crucifixion can’t lie in the act but in the who: the Creator Incarnate, absurd only if a creator can be ultimately subject to their own destruction (the Resurrection answers that question).
In this sense, it is a surpassing act of love, because it is the only sacrifice that solves the dilemma: it meets the demand for the destruction of that which is not good yet can restore that which continues to be loved as designed for good.