Good Friday | April 15, 2022 | Jn 18-19 | Evan McClanahan |
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?
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’s 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’t 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.
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, “No,” our forgiveness really does require a sacrifice. But why?
The earliest theory is the Moral Influence theory. This basically argues that in the life and 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’s 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.
Now, Jesus does say to “carry our cross and follow” 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 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.
The Ransom Theory was a prominent view in the early Church. I’ll quote from another author here because he summarizes it well: “This theory essentially teaches that Jesus Christ died as a ransom sacrifice, paid either to Satan (the most dominant view) or to God the Father.” 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.
The Christus Victor model was probably the most widely held view until the 12th 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.
The Satisfaction Theory pretty much replaced the Christus Victor view (don’t 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’s demand for justice. This theory was a response to the Ransom theory which said man had a debt to Satan. No, we don’t owe Satan anything, but we do owe God, and our debt to God is injustice. So, Jesus essentially pays the price necessary for justice.
The most dominant view of the Reformers – and the one you would have heard by default most of your Lutheran life – is the Penal Substitution 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: “In the light of Jesus’ death, God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner.”
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 “progressive” Christianity is frequently their disdain of this view. It is labeled “Cosmic child abuse”, 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.
There are other views[1], but I thought instead of considering them, we should consider a number of biblical texts that speak to this issue. After all, on Good Friday, we read the entire Passion Narrative, but other scriptures shed more theological light on the nature of the atonement.
For example, 1 Peter 2:24: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.” There you have the bearing of sins for us so that we are freed from sins. That seems to be language of exchange, of satisfying God’s wrath. Or later in 1 Peter, he writes: “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God.”
From the most didactic of all the books of the New Testament, Romans 5: “For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly…God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God.” (Romans 5:6-8)
To connect Jesus to the Hebrew scriptures, the author of, well, Hebrews helps us tremendously: “But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation), he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.” (Hebrews 9:11-12)
And finally, the Gospel in miniature as I said a few weeks ago: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Cor. 5:21)
These scriptures powerfully speak to the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ death, for you, for me, as a blessed exchange of his righteousness for our sin. He pays a price so we do not have to, so that we can be restored to our Father without fear of judgment.
I don’t know if any of these theories, or perhaps some combination of these theories perfectly tell the whole story about the atonement. Here is what I do know. From the Garden of Eden until today, our sin wreaks havoc on and in the world. Our lust, war, greed, anger, envy, and lies lead to suffering and they are an affront to our holy and just and good and merciful Creator.
Given the scriptural witness of sacrifice in the Temple for the forgiveness of sin, the beginning of sin from a tree, and the passages that speak of the saving power of Jesus’ blood and blessed exchange, Jesus’ death was more than an example. The very heavens shook when Christ was crucified because something in the fabric of creation would never again be the same. The hope of the entire fallen creation would be found only in Christ, for only Christ was the perfectly innocent God-Man who could pay the price for our sin. What we have heard on Good Friday is that He did. Willingly and fully. So that we can be free. And that is why this Friday is Good. Amen.
Evan McClanahan
[1] All quotes are from here: https://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/
Deutsch 
English (UK) 
Português do Brasil 
Dansk 
Español