Why Did Jesus Die?
“We should just pin all the debt in the world to one guy and then kill him,” Cameron wrote on Twitter in February 2021.
“I think you just invented Christianity,” responded Ryan.
But is this response an accurate description of the central truth of Christian doctrine? Can Christianity be simply summed up by this? One man died for all? Can we simply say “Christ died for our sins” is a faithful summary of the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints? The answer is yes. Gloriously, joyfully, yes!
As Paul wrote, “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you…” (And what is that gospel? How does Paul define it?) “…For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:1-3). Christ died for our sins and rose again from the dead. That was how Paul summarized the content of the gospel, and he declared that message to be of first importance when raising up this new church in the faith. This was the message that defined and organized all of his teaching: “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2).
But it may surprise you to realize that not all theologians throughout church history agreed that this is why Jesus died. We must examine this because in order to understand doctrine correctly we need not only affirmations but also denials. If one thing is true, then other things are not true. We affirm this; we deny that. In affirming the truth of the doctrine of the atonement, what should we also understand to not be true?
1. Karl Barth (1886-1968) argued that when Jesus bore our sins on the cross it was not to turn away the wrath of God but instead to unite all of humanity with the divine nature. This teaching paves the way for universal salvation, since if all are united in Christ, who reconciled all things, then no one will be separated from Him in hell. Barth also argued that God simply chose in His freedom to forgive us, not because Jesus bore our penalty, but because God can do whatever He wants. God’s free choice of forgiveness is our righteousness, not Jesus’ blood. “His forgiveness makes good our repudiation and failure and thus overcomes the hurt that we do to God, and the disturbance of the relationship between Himself and us, and the disturbance of the general relationship between the Creator and the creation” (Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. IV/1, 1953. p.486).
2. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), a student of Jacob Arminius, taught that God chose to maintain the moral order of the universe by punishing Christ to show the seriousness of His law and holiness. Jesus did not bear our guilt, since sin and guilt cannot be transferred to another, he taught. “God, who has supreme power as to all things not unjust in themselves, and who is liable to no law, willed to use the torments and death of Christ for the setting up of a weighty example against the immense faults of us all” (De satisfactione Christi adversus Faustum Socinum, 1617). Effectively, the cross was God’s warning shot to humanity, showing how much He hates sins, which should cause us to repent. And now that God has upheld His own honor by proving the weight of His law, He is able to forgive.
3. Peter Abelard (1079-1142), and later Horace Bushnell (1802-1876), argued that the only thing that separates us from God is our proud minds and stubborn wills. Therefore God sent His Son to die a horrid death to awaken our cold hearts with powerful moral influence. In this teaching, humanity is essentially good and no justice was satisfied on the cross. Seeing the innocent Christ suffering alongside His own creation should melt our hearts into love. “It is not that the suffering appeases God, but that it expresses God—displays, in open history, the unconquerable love of God’s heart” (Bushnell, God in Christ, 1849).
4. Anslem (1033-1109) argued that the honor of God—not the wrath or justice of God—was satisfied on the cross. The Lord, like a feudal overlord, had His dignity injured by His subjects. Essentially, humanity has done damage to God by violating His honor (not by violating His law), and God graciously gave His own Son as payment and compensation to Himself for damages done.
5. Some early Greek fathers argued that the purpose of the cross was so that Christ might engage in battle with Satan and rescue those held captive by the powers of darkness, thus emerging from the empty tomb in cosmic victory. Origen (184-253) argued that Satan demanded the blood of Christ as payment for the release of captives. “The evil one reigned over us until the soul of Jesus had been given to him as a ransom—to him who deceived himself, thinking that he could be master of Jesus, not realizing that [Jesus] did not suffer the agony which [Satan] applied to hold him down” (Origen, Commentary on Matthew, XVI.8). In this way, God tricked Satan, offering His Son in exchange for human souls, and then brilliantly took Him back by the resurrection, cheating death and the devil. Gregory of Nyssa (335-394) wrote “In order to secure that the ransom in our behalf might be easily accepted by him who required it, the Deity was hidden under the veil of our nature, that so, as with ravenous fish, the hook of the Deity might be gulped down along with the bait of flesh” (Gregory, The Great Catechism, 24). Satan, the deceiver, was himself deceived, when Christ was raised from the dead.
In short, all five of the above arguments are deeply flawed. The ransom was not paid to Satan because we sin against God, not against the devil. The honor of God is not reason enough for the cross because God’s law was also transgressed. The moral influence theory of the cross fails to deal with the pervasive nature of Old Testament sacrifices as the payment for sins, through which we understand Christ as the Lamb of God. The moral order of the universe is not reason enough for the cross because the Bible says Jesus died for sins in view of God’s righteousness, not for abstract universal laws. The universal election of Barth does violence to texts like John, which says that “whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18).
How Do We Make Sense of These Claims?
Why did Jesus die? When we ask that question and investigate the Bible we quickly realize that each one of the above false theories began by pulling on a thread of truth. Did Jesus die to defeat the powers of hell and Satan, releasing us from Satan’s grasp? After all, has not Christ through the cross and resurrection delivered us “from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Colossians 1:13)? Was Jesus’ death to magnify the law and maintain the moral order of the universe? After all, “The Lord was pleased, for his righteousness' sake, to magnify his law and make it glorious” (Isaiah 42:21). Where else has God magnified His righteous, eternal law more than in the cross? Was it to melt our hearts with a powerful moral influence, capturing our imaginations with the renovating power and vision of love? After all, has not Christ “suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:21)?
Was the death of Jesus to pay the price of ransom that would liberate captives? Was it to be the kinsman-redeemer who would redeem us from slavery? Was it to show God’s compassion in a display of agony so that His creatures would know their Creator identified with their pain? Was it to remove the stain of sin and restore us into a relationship of fellowship?
Most errors in understanding the atonement throughout church history have come from misunderstanding how all of the above reasons relate to one another. After all, doesn’t the Bible teach many of these things? Should these motifs of the atonement all stand side-by-side as equals? Is there one reason for the cross or a dozen reasons for the cross? How do these various passages about the death of Christ relate to one another?
The way forward through this confusion is to see that the big idea of the death of Jesus is substitutionary atonement. Jesus was our vicarious sacrifice. He died in our place. He took our debt of sin and paid the price. The demands of God’s justice are satisfied in Him. All the other benefits and reasons for the cross flow out of this.
The big idea of the cross is
Substitutionary Atonement
from this flows
Ransom (1 Tim 2:6 - who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the witness for this proper time.)
Redemption (Eph 1:7 - In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our transgressions, according to the riches of His grace)
Propitiation (1 John 2:2 - and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.)
Expiation (1 John 1:7 - but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.)
Reconciliation, from God to man (2 Cor 5:18-19 - Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their transgressions against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.)
Reconciliation, from man to God (Romans 5:10 - For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.)
Reconciliation, from man to man (Eph 2:13-14 - But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups one and broke down the dividing wall of the partition)
Moral influence for Christian living. Because Jesus paid for our sins, He has given us a vision of love with moral influence. The moral imperative for righteously suffering is that Christ paid for our sins, bringing us to God. (1 Peter 3:17-18 - For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing good rather than for doing wrong. For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, so that He might bring you to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;)
Upholding the moral order of the universe. God is able to maintain His holiness and the ‘universal laws of justice’ (which is His own character) in light of His mercy because sin debt is paid by Jesus. Because Jesus stood in our place God can without hypocrisy punish sin (because He is just) and at the same time count sinners as righteous (because He is the justifier). (Romans 3:24-26 - being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith, for a demonstration of His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.)
Cosmic victory over Satan. Because Jesus paid for our sins, He defeated the evil powers in the spiritual realm. Notice that because our debt has been canceled, we know Jesus triumphed over the spiritual authorities: (Col 2:14-15 - Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us which was hostile to us, He also has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them in Him.)