2020_010_A
Support the Café
Search our site

Why did Jesus have to die?

Why did Jesus have to die?

Derek Flood, the author of a new book on the death of Jesus, talks about the meaning of that death in the Huffington Post:

Why did Jesus have to die? Was it to appease a wrathful God’s demand for punishment? Does that mean Jesus died to save us from God? How could someone ever truly love or trust a God like that? How can that ever be called “Good News?” It’s questions like these that make so many people want to have nothing to do with Christianity.

….

Behind all of this lies an understanding of the cross rooted in retributive justice known as penal substitution. Simply put: in this theory of the atonement Jesus is punished (penal) instead of us (substitution). Penal substitution is, without question, the most widespread theory of the atonement today.* So much so, that many people do not think of it as a theory at all, but simply as “what the Bible says.” …

… guess what? the Bible doesn’t say this at all. You don’t have to adopt a schizophrenic view that pits God against Jesus. You don’t need to accept a doctrine that flies in the face of the grace and love you have experienced. There is a better way: one that is both fully in line with the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament, and at the same time grace-focused and life-giving. That really is good news.

*It wasn’t always that way of course. For the first thousand years, the work of Christ was understood primarily in terms of God’s act of healing people, and liberating them from the bonds of sin and death. This understanding of the atonement is known as Christus Victor. But gradually there was a shift towards a legal focus, and with it a focus on violent punishment. The message was flipped on it’s head: instead of the crucifixion being seen as an act of grave injustice (as it is portrayed in all four Gospels), there was a shift towards the claim that God had demanded the death of Jesus to quench his anger. Not coincidentally, this coincided with increased violence perpetrated by the church, and it went downhill from there

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

6 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mscottsail

Yes, Bill, thanks. Anselm’s Satisfaction theory is what I was thinking of.

Marshall Scott

Weiwen Ng

Clay – the desire for empire is a very human desire. American readers of this blog live in an empire right now – not one as cruel as the Romans, but definitely an empire. So, while Christus Victor can be misunderstood, it should not be.

Bill Dilworth

“feudal obligation” (yes, that’s a real theory, but I’ve lost the technical term for it this morning).”

Would that be Satisfaction? http://www.edwardfudge.com/gracemails/atonement_theories.html

mscottsail

Seems to me that this is one of those points where it isn’t “either/or.” There are several models of atonement, each of which illumines something, and none of which is adequate. Now, Ann, I would agree that this is a particularly Episcopal thing to say (once I would have said “Anglican,” but some of our siblings in other parts of the world have demonstrably narrowed); but I’m quite aware of Christian bodies that have explicitly embraced “penal substitution” to the exclusion of “Christus Victor” or “feudal obligation” (yes, that’s a real theory, but I’ve lost the technical term for it this morning).

Marshall Scott

Clay Calhoun

Interesting, I was just reading up on the Christus Victor view of atonement last night. It’s a view that I find very appealing for a number of reasons, not least of which its roots in the early church and its focus on God as all-powerful victor (in comparison to God ‘at the mercy of’ a law that demands blood sacrifice). One thing that does concern me a bit is the propensity of some to seemingly read into the Christus Victor view the idea that we really are not responsible for the death of Jesus. It was those corrupt ‘powers of empire’ that perpetrated this ‘act of grave injustice’, not me, and therefore the gospels are really about protesting against unjust political systems, or economic inequality, or some such temporal problem. As if to say, not only have we been liberated from sin and death, but we were never really at fault in the first place, and so this freedom is simply what we are due. I think this is a misunderstanding of Christus Victor, but one that unfortunately has gained a following in more recent times.

Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café