Good Friday | April 15, 2022 | Jn 18-19 | Evan McClanahan |<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why did Jesus die? It may surprise you to learn that not all Christians agree on the answer to that question, except perhaps in the broadest of strokes. And perhaps not even then. In fact, there are competing theories of the atonement that offer different reasons for why Jesus died. That is, what are the economics involved within God Himself when it comes to the death of Christ and the satisfaction of sin? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
You can generally boil down these theories to seven. Many of them have some overlap, and they all appeal to scripture. The main differences revolve around just how much authority the devil has in this redemptive sacrifice, whether Christ is actually punished for other people\u2019s sins, or whether Jesus is more or less just providing an example of moral living. Because I usually try to apply our theology, I don\u2019t often take the time to really explain the doctrine. But because you will hear these different theories of the atonement, you should know what your church thinks on this topic and why. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the broadest of broad strokes, we believe that Jesus died for our sins. But, why does our forgiveness require a dead Jesus? Could God have achieved this another way, perhaps by simply decreeing us forgiveness without such a sacrifice? Our answer is, \u201cNo,\u201d our forgiveness really does require a sacrifice. But why?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The earliest theory is the Moral Influence<\/strong> theory. This basically argues that in the life and<\/em> death of Jesus, we see the kind of sacrifice necessary to live a moral life. Jesus had to die to show us what it will take to do the right thing, and to demonstrate that God was willing to do what he also asks us to do. This tends to put the ball in the Christian\u2019s court and you will see this view rejected quite strongly by the Reformers. Because if the cross is just an example, then it is up to us to follow the example instead of relying on the finished work of the cross. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, Jesus does say to \u201ccarry our cross and follow\u201d him. There is no denying that Jesus is a moral example for us and that death itself may be the call on our lives. But Jesus is more<\/em> than an example. At his death, the skies turn black because something cosmic in nature is happening, and the sacrificial system of the Hebrew Scriptures surely points to more than a mere example. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Ransom Theory<\/strong> was a prominent view in the early Church. I\u2019ll quote from another author here because he summarizes it well: \u201cThis theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died as a ransom sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominant view) or to God the Father.\u201d Basically, Jesus pays off a debt we owe either to God or to Satan. This view comes under attack because it implies we have a debt to Satan and that gives way too much credit to that fallen angel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Christus Victor<\/strong> model was probably the most widely held view until the 12th<\/sup> century. Rather than paying off a debt to God or the devil, it simply states that the death of Christ defeated sin and evil and therefore freed humanity from its grasp. Now that is language that I certainly like, and I think that we are now getting to the point where all of these theories or models say true things without excluding the others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Satisfaction Theory<\/strong> pretty much replaced the Christus Victor view (don\u2019t worry, there will not be a test later) and yet, the focus is more on the justice of God being offended sin and the death of Jesus being necessary to satisfy God\u2019s demand for justice. This theory was a response to the Ransom theory which said man had a debt to Satan. No, we don\u2019t owe Satan anything, but we do owe God, and our debt to God is injustice. So, Jesus essentially pays the price necessary for justice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The most dominant view of the Reformers \u2013 and the one you would have heard by default most of your Lutheran life \u2013 is the Penal Substitution <\/strong>theory. It is very similar to the previous view in that God requires something from humanity to make things right. Therefore, Christ offers himself as the penalty for our sins. Again, quoting from another author: \u201cIn the light of Jesus\u2019 death, God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n While this view is fairly widely held on paper in church confessions, etc., it is becoming a subject of mockery more often. A sign that a Christian is leaving orthodoxy behind and embracing more \u201cprogressive\u201d Christianity is frequently their disdain of this view. It is labeled \u201cCosmic child abuse\u201d, painting God as an abusive father towards his son, making him die an avoidable death. Of course, that soundbite neglects the reality that Jesus offers his life freely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n