We are fast approaching Good Friday and the interwebs is filling with people post and reposting essays about the crucifixion. The ones that always nag at me are those that seek to argue that Jesus’ death was not somehow an atoning sacrifice offered for our sins. 1I have decided not to link to any such articles and drive further traffic to them. They are easy enough to find on your own and I hope you will trust that I am not creating a straw argument.
France, Central (Paris); 1st quarter of the 15th century
The usual objection is based upon a rejection of penal substation or any of the other various models of atonement theory. The link provided has a very nice summary of these discussions and concerns about such models and they each do present difficulties. And that is what bothers me about such pieces written so many clergy, authors, and scholars; they are confusing the biblical account with later attempts to systematize and explain the mechanisms of salvation.
The New Testament does clearly articulate in various ways that Jesus’ death was “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). It is rooted in the biblical and Jewish understanding of atoning sacrifice and the importance of Yom Kippur (see Lev. 16 and not that Passover is not an atoning sacrifice). The sacrificial system is one that is foreign and offensive to most of us today, but our discomfort is irrelevant for understanding Judaism of the time of Jesus. Sacrifice was the language established in the Torah for communication with God, expressing our love, loyalty, and commitment to God and the Covenant. It was the language that Jesus used to fulfill that Covenant.
At the risk of being accused of proof texting, it is worthwhile to list just a few of the relevant passages.
- Matt. 26:27 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
- 1 John 2:1b-2 “But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”
- 1 Pet. 3:18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God.
- 2 Cor. 5:18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us.
- Rom. 5:8 But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. 9 Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life.
So why did Jesus die? According to the New Testament, Jesus voluntarily gave up his life to be “the atoning sacrifice for our sins” and in so doing he reconciled the world to God.
That’s it. The texts really are clear in their statements. Now, in the millennia that have passed since that time there have been innumerable efforts to seek to understand and explain the mechanism of atonement through various theories and, as noted, they all have difficulties and failings. But that should be a rejection of the models, not of the core teaching.
More recently, people have become discomforted by the image of Jesus’ sacrifice as “cosmic child abuse” and the very idea of a sacrificial system is anathema to the conscious of most modern (western) people. That is understandable but fails to take into account the reality of the Trinity. It is not a father offering his son as a sacrifice; it is a self-sacrifice by God, offering, in some mysterious manner, a portion of the Godhead for the sake of the world. It should also be noted, that our modern (misplaced) readings of child abuse does not change the New Testament texts. They say what they say.
Of course, one may object to the idea of Jesus as the atoning sacrifice for our sins, many do, but then one should not claim that the New Testament says something other than it does. Those who hold such views need to be honest and acknowledge their rejection of a central premise of the New Testament and historical Christian teaching.
- 1I have decided not to link to any such articles and drive further traffic to them. They are easy enough to find on your own and I hope you will trust that I am not creating a straw argument.
6 thoughts on “Let’s be honest, why did Jesus die on a cross?”
Here’s the question that I am having a hard time getting a clear answer to. It seems to me that the covenant language would indicate that the “necessity” of a sacrifice for God to be able to forgive sin is rooted in the covenant stipulations between Israel and God. That is to say that in order for God’s integrity and faithfulness to the covenant to remain intact a sacrifice had to be offered. If this is the case does it then follow that the same sacrifice necessarily had to be offered in order for God to be able to forgive the sin of non-Jewish people? Is it possible that the death of Jesus was doing more than simply fulfilling the law/covenant requirements? if so, the problem it seems to me is the tendency in some traditions to reduce the whole of the meaning/significance of Jesus’ death to the fulfillment of the covenant stipulations.
Tim, as always, thank you for a thoughtful post. My reading of both the Prophets and the NT is that Jesus death is both/and. It is an “atoning sacrifice,” in some way a fulfillment of the covenant, but also an expansion of the forgiveness of sins to all the world. Jesus’ death “covers” (kippur) all of the world and not simply descendants of Israel. The language of sacrifice is rooted in the Torah and the restoration of all the world in the Prophets. Proof texts available upon request…
I think your critique is also spot-on that if there is too much emphasis upon the death of Jesus as fulfillment of the covenant (as opposed to the prophet announcements of a universal salvation to all the world) then the work accomplished on the cross and in the resurrection is limited.
Yes, I see that both/and angle. I probably was not as clear in my question as I could have been so let me try again. Before I try again let me say that I think it is important to note that no matter what hypothetical is posed there remains the actual act of Jesus atoning sacrifice that is, as you noted, “For the forgiveness of sin.” And ultimately that is the act that we must work from. With that said, the thing that troubles me is the implication that God was bound by some exeternal concept of justice that required he act in some particular way. When atonement theories are framed in that way I think you run into some real problems. So, my question in its simplest form would be, “did God have to have a blood sacrifice in order to forgive or did there have to have a blood sacrifice because those were the terms he agreed to as he met humanity in their sinfulness? Perhaps another way to ask it would be, “is the sacrificial system God’s design or accommodation?” And finally, maybe there is simply mystery surrounding the act of sacrifice and it’s efficacy that i/we will simply have to accept by faith.
Given the choice of words you offer, I would say the sacrificial system is “accommodation” but that does not have to mean that it is not God’s design. I appreciate as well that you are taking a step further back and considering the system as a whole. For reason that I do not think we can determine due to lack of data and knowledge (not the same thing), humanity “spoke” in the language of sacrifice.* So God spoke to people in that way, transforming it in the Law and then through Prophecy and in the offering of Jesus. None of this is without difficulties and unfolding problems as we take each strand or moment of the discussion. For example, if God is capable of doing anything why not create a different system, just go straight to a universal salvation with Moses. Or how can God “need” anything? God doesn’t, of course, and again “could” do anything. And so on and on…
But to your point directly, I think that the sacrificial system was put in place as an accommodation, it is how all of humanity understood relationships and contracts, but that ultimately it was a system to be abolished through the one, final sacrifice.
And yes, there is great mystery and those of use from Evangelical backgrounds and leanings are wont to forget that and try and define and prove everything. It is a mystery, something we know only by revelation and to be contemplated, not comprehended.
*I know there are many excellent studies of sacrificial systems and anthropology as well as theological considerations, beginning with considerations of Gen. 4.
Good point about accommodation not precluding God’s design. But thank you for seeing the larger point as well :). I think that within my tradition we run into difficulty by failing to see that the sacrificial system was not a fundamentally necessary way to navigate the world of broken relationships but it was the way they were navigated and therefore the way that God met humanity in their need and is the way we must now contemplate, without ever fully comprehending, (great distinction btw) the crucifixion as the means by which the world is reconciled. Thanks for the helpful engagement!