Jesus Came to Die

When I worked at Casa Juan Diego, we had "team meetings" with all of the staff from both the youth center and its parent church, St. Pius V, every Wednesday. These meetings were dedicated to personal development issues, such as communication, self-assertiveness, social action, and religion. I would cringe inwardly whenever a religious topic came up. The presenter (it varied from week to week) would regularly say things like denying that transubstantiation had ever been defined, that the penitential rite at the beginning of Mass was a sacramental confession, or offer some near-Marxist view of "the People of God." It is to my great discredit that I never felt comfortable enough to really offer much of a challenge to these views when they came up, but I didn't - even though most of these people had become my friends and were all kind people.
One particular statement has left me replaying the scene in my mind, searching for something to say. I have been replaying this scene for two years now. We were talking about who knows what when someone said that Jesus did not come to die for our sins. Stunned silence came over the group, and one woman raised her hand to disagree, but her protests were met with some answer that quieted her down. (I'm not sure of the details because it was in rapid Spanish.)
Yesterday I found a response.
We were looking at the beginning of John in a conversation about spirituality in Liberation Theology, when I noticed 1:25. There, in the very first chapter, John the Baptist recognizes Jesus:

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.

This is a clear sacrificial reference. Exodus 12 details the use of the Passover lamb's blood for keeping death at bay, and Isaiah 63 describes the servant of God who, "like a lamb led to the slaughter" (7) constitutes an "offering for sin" (10).
This clear sacrificial reference at the beginning of John reminded me of the beginning of Mark. Eleven lines into that Gospel, at the baptism by John, we are given a reliable statement about Jesus' identity:

And a voice came from the heavens, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."

This verse is a reference to psalm 2:7:

I will proclaim the decree of the LORD, who said to me, "You are my son; today I am your father.

It describes the Davidic king in Jerusalem divinely set against the marauding nations. Mark lets us know that this is good news for those "nations" by combining this psalm with Isaiah 42:1:

Here is my servant whom I uphold, my chosen one with whom I am pleased, Upon whom I have put my spirit; he shall bring forth justice to the nations

The Davidic messiah is the servant of the Lord, come to "establish justice on the earth" (42:4). So far, so good. But Mark's voice from heaven weaves in one more allusion: "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased." Mark is clearly referencing the "beloved son" whom Abraham was called to sacrifice (Gen 22:2, 12, and 17). This Davidic king has come to establish justice on earth - through his own death. Mark tells us this from this very first and most reliable identity statement about Jesus.
Both Mark and John, then begin with statements about Jesus' death. What about the other Gospels? Luke doesn't seem to have any comparable "thesis statement" at the head of his Gospel, but Matthew does.

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matt 1:1)

"Son of David" is a standard messianic reference, but what about "son of Abraham?" The note on the verse in the USCCB hypertext Bible says that this reference to Abraham reflects Matthew's interest in the "universal scope" of Jesus' mission. Yes, but we all know how well that turned out for the first "son of Abraham." In case the point is too obscure, the second verse clarifies: Abraham became the father of Isaac Why does Matthew begin his genealogy with Abraham and Isaac? Luke gets across the point of universality by tracing Jesus back to Adam (Luke 3:38). Matthew's choice of the most famous father-son sacrificial pair is probably not insignificant. Especially not in the light of 1:21:

She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

Another heavenly messenger (i.e., reliable source) identifies Jesus with a salvation which later we learn is effected by the shedding of Christ's blood (26:28). These references in the first chapter point to Christ's ultimate fate on the cross.
So Matthew, Mark, and John all clearly explain Jesus' identity and mission in terms of his death. The crucifixion is not just some accidental feature of an otherwise life-giving proclamation of peace and justice. The crucifixion is somehow at the heart of the good news of Jesus. My co-worker was wrong: Jesus did indeed come to die for our sins. He certainly came to do more, but he did no less that that.