What’s the point of Jesus?

In this blog, I want to explore the reason for Jesus (God incarnate) and why he had to die on a cross.

Most likely beginning with the Assyrians and Babylonians (6 B.C.E.), crucifixion was brought to Rome by Alexander the Great in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Before its abolishment in 4 C.E., the Romans “perfected” this painful and extremely shameful way to die. Generally, this form of punishment was for slaves, disgraced soldiers, Christians, foreigners and political activists.

“In 4 B.C.E., the Roman general Varus crucified 2,000 Jews, and there were mass crucifixions during the first century C.E., according to the Roman-Jewish historian Josephus. “Christ was crucified on the pretext that he instigated rebellion against Rome, on a par with zealots and other political activists,” the authors wrote in the report.”

Crucifixion was a common occurrence. Crucifixion of self-proclaimed Messiahs was also quite common. Why did Jesus die on a cross (and be resurrected 3 days later!)? What actually happened, and what does that have to do with us right now?

Firstly, I would like to take you through Atonement Theory and then discuss an Alternate Orthodox Theory from the Franciscan Tradition. It is important to remember that these are all theories! Some are better than others, but they all have strengths and weaknesses due to man’s limited mind.

Primary Atonement theory is based on the requirement of attainment (the act of making amends for a wrong or injury/reparation or expiation of sin) due to:

1. the Holiness of God: The righteousness of God demands that sin
2. be exposed, judged and punished;
3. Divine Law: God’s giving of free well necessitated that all live within the boundaries of God’s will;
4. Man’s sinfulness: Humanity has fallen into a state of sinfulness: spirit, soul & body towards self, neighbour, creation and creator.
5. The Wrath of God: Simply the righteous anger of a good and holy God against sin.

Through the Atonement, Christ provides reconciliation, expiation, and redemption where there was alienation, condemnation and enslavement due to the human condition.

Here I will point out that The Atonement and Crucifixion are related but not one and the same (we will discuss more as we look through the theories). The crucifixion was a temporal and historical physical (and mental) act of man towards Christ. The Atonement was and will be an eternal, doctrinal work of God that took place in Christ.

Mainstream Atonement Theories

One again, I would like to remind you that these are all theories. What we do know as truth is that God came to earth as Jesus (God incarnate), died on a cross and rose again 3 days later.

Ransom Theory

This is the oldest theory, which is linked to the Early Church Fathers Origen (185–254) and Augustine (354–430). This theory based on Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 Corinthians 6:20, describes Christ’s death as a ransom paid to Satan to purchase captive man from Satans claims. The main object of this theory is Satan. Man was in enslavement and bondage to Satan, and God bought victory over Satan and our deliverance through a “Holy Deception.”

The traditional view is that God paid a ransom to Satan. Satan is tricked into thinking Jesus is human and not God. Satan sees that Jesus performs miracles and is blameless and sees Jesus as more valuable than mankind. Gregory of Nyssa puts it this way, ‘When the enemy saw the power, he recognised in Christ a bargain which offered him more than he held. For this reason, he chose him as the ransom for those whom he had shut up in death’s prison.’ (Gregory of Nyssa, “An Address on Religious Instruction,” Chapter 23. Library of Christian Classics, III, 300)

God has victory over Satan through Christ. I can agree with that. Ransom theory is clear and logical but

1. Why did God have to respect a supposed claim of Satan?
2. Was Satan more powerful than God so that God had to owe him something?
3. Is it really in God’s nature to deceive?

Recapitulation Theory (Irenaeus c. 130- c.200) and Dramatic Theory or Christus Victor (Aulen 1879–1977) are very close and built upon this theory.

Example Theory

Much like the name suggests, Christ’s death was an example of faith and obedience to inspire a man to be obedient. Pelagius (354–418), Lelio (1525- 62) and Fausto Socinus (1539–1604) emphasise the human nature of Jesus and that by his example of true faith and obedience we will be inspired to follow. Socinians reject Jesus’ deity. Example theory rejects the idea of God being a God of retributive justice. Pelagius emphasises that humans are capable of doing Gods will. Key scriptures 1 Peter 2:21; 1 John 2:6, Micah 6:8, Luke 10:27.

This one is interesting as there is no mention (or need of) Satan. It is primarily based on human will and the temporal act of Jesus’ death. Other than the act of Jesus’ death, there is no further effect.

1. What was the purpose of dying on a cross?
2. Does God want us all to die on a cross?
3. Was Jesus God incarnate? (Socinus didn’t think so)
4. Can we achieve perfection without Devine grace? (Pelagianism)

Mystical Theory (Schleiermacher 1768–1834) can be linked here. Christ overcame his own sinfulness.

Satisfaction Theory

This theory, influenced by the Feudal System, comes as a reaction to the Ransom theory. Anselm (1033–1109), basing his idea on John 10:18, suggests that Christ’s death brought infinite honour to God by dying a death he did not owe (as God) but that man owed (as man). Anselm’s most significant issue with Ransom theory was that something had to be paid to Satan. So instead theorised that Christ gave more to the Father than He owed the Father owed Him a reward. Because Christ dis did not need the reward, he freely gave it to man as salvation. This theory is one of the more confusing ones due to its round-about way of events.

1. Why did Jesus owe anything to God in the first place?
2. Did humans take honour from God?
3. Could Jesus have brought honour without the crucifixion?
4. Why did God owe Jesus a reward?

Moral Influence Theory

This theory is a reaction to a reaction. Abelard (1079–1142) proposed that there is nothing in God that needs to be appeased and that the problem is humanity’s sinful, hardened heart. Christ’s death demonstrated God’s deep love for humanity as it is sick and needs help. Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:17–19; Philippians 2:5–11; Colossians 3:24 are critical verses for this theory. Bushnell (1802–76); Rashdall (1858–1924) further developed this theory in that our attitudes keep us from God, and His love softens us. We are then convicted of sin &

inspired to follow him.

1. Is the problem of evil and sin solved?
2. How does the resurrection fit in this?
3. Why is it that not all hearts have softened?
4. Could God have not shown his love without the crucifixion?

Penal Substitution Theory

Rooted in Satisfaction theory, Penal Substitution Theory developed by Calvin (1509–64), Morris, Stott comes as the feudal system has faded and the perspective is not on judicial law. God’s perfect love demanded justice for sin. Christ’s death was a substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied the penalty of humanities sin, bringing forgiveness, imputing righteousness, and reconciling man to God. This is once again transactional, but instead of restoring honour (substitution theory), Christ pays the debt of sin. Critical verses for this theory are Isaiah 53, John 11:50–52; Romans 5:8–9; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 3:18.

1. Did the trinity differ in opinion ( Jesus had to save us from God)?
2. Someone had to pay, so does God really forgive unconditionally?
3. What happened to all of those before this particular event?

Governmental Theory (Grotius, 1583–1645) is linked here.

Summary

Each of us come to believe or be influenced by one or more of these theories that make sense to us due to cultural and family backgrounds. Most [Western] Christians, at least most Pentecostals, lean towards the Penal Substitution Theory primarily because this theory is rooted in what we are familiar with; justice and individual guilt. It is important to note that ALL of these theories, though some more loosely than others, have scriptural grounding.

“just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” — Matthew 20:28. (NIV). Ok, Jesus was a ransom.

“To this, you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.”- 1 Peter 2:21 (NIV). Ok then, Jesus’ death was an example.

“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. — 1 Peter 3:18 (NIV). Alright, Jesus died instead of us (penal substitution).

However, as we have discussed, each theory is limited. It is also interesting to note that all ideas are adopted, or are based on, the Primary Catholic atonement Theory (the Protestant split only occurred in the 16 C.E.). But are we limited to these theories?

All of the above are presented as a contingency plan. Plan B if you will. Jesus comes (Incarnation) as Atonement and expiation for (personal) sin. For most parts of Christianity, the only important part of Jesus’ life was the last three days, or even hours of his life (death and resurrection). But what if It was God’s plan to send Jesus even before Eve ate that forbidden fruit?

An Alternate Story

The Western sequence of creation unfolds as Creation, Fall, Redemption. However the Franciscans see it another way with Jesus as always being the blueprint and basis of creation (see: Ephesians 1:4, Colossians 1:15–18, John 1, Colossians 1:15–18). Instead of basing the sequence of creation on only the Genesis account, the Franciscan school of thought bases it on John 1 and the “Christ Poem” in Colossians:

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Colossians 1:15–20 (NIV)

This Alternate Orthodox Theology is developed from the insight of the Eastern Fathers. They believed that the Incarnation was far too important and too significant an event to be initiated by sin. This theory was not seen as heretical but was pushed aside as the East and West split (Great Schism of 1054).

Rupert of Deutz (a Benedictine) around 1127 was possibly the first to articulate the idea that since God was good and therefore could not will evil, then the Incarnation was foreordained so that God could be present and rejoice with His people. The cross was the result of man’s fall, but the Incarnation was not (Franciscan Theology, Tradition and Spirituality, p 7).

Here, sin was not the reason for the Incarnation. It was part of the plan from the beginning. Christ, God incarnated in man, had always been meant to be the capstone of creation. The Incarnation was an initial action that caused creation, not a reaction to a problem. The cross was not punishment or a debt to be paid but rehabilitation, healing, and reconciliation.

‘Restorative justice, of course, comes to its full demonstration in the ongoing healing ministry of Jesus. Jesus represents the real and deeper level of teaching of the Hebrew Prophets. Jesus never punished anybody! Yes, he challenged people, but always for the sake of insight, healing, and restoration of people and situations to their divine origin and source. Once a person recognises that Jesus’ mission (obvious in all four Gospels) was to heal people, not punish them, the dominant theories of retributive justice begin to lose their appeal and authority’ (Rohr, 2019).

The view of an angry God needing to be appeased (Satisfaction Theory) has unfortunate implications, especially for those already afraid and resentful of God. The western idea of God is a punitive, angry and demanding old man. This view begs the question, why would you love a God like this?

“In the Franciscan view, God did not need to be paid to love and forgive God’s own creation. Love cannot be bought by some “necessary sacrifice”; if it could, it would not and could not work its transformative effects. Duns Scotus and his followers were committed to protecting the absolute freedom to love in God. If forgiveness needs to be bought or paid for, then it is not authentic forgiveness at all. Love and forgiveness must be freely given, or they do not accomplish their profoundly transformative healing. Self-serving love does not change the heart. It must be free and undeserved love or transformation does not happen.” (Jesus and the Cross, 2019)

Rohr (2019) explains the cross like this, “The Divine Mind transforms all human suffering by identifying completely with the human predicament and standing in full solidarity with it from beginning to end. This is the real meaning of the crucifixion. The cross is not just a singular event. It’s a statement from God that reality has a cruciform pattern. Jesus was killed in a collision of cross-purposes, conflicting interests, and half-truths, caught between the demands of an empire and the religious establishment of his day. The cross was the price Jesus paid for living in a “mixed” world, which is both human and divine, simultaneously broken and utterly whole. He hung between a good thief and a bad thief, between heaven and earth, inside of both humanity and divinity, a male body with a feminine soul, utterly whole and yet utterly disfigured — holding together all the primary opposites (see Colossians 1:15–20).”

So how do you see Jesus and the work he did on the cross? I do not instead to change your doctrine but rather “colour it in more.” These truths I hold 1. God created; 2. Jesus died on the cross and rose again, and 3. The resurrection of the body.

How do you see Jesus and the work he did on the cross? I do not intened to change your doctrine but rather broaden it.

These truths I hold: 1. God created; 2. Jesus died on the cross and rose again, and 3. The resurrection of the body.

Resources

Akin, Daniel. Jesus Christ: What Did He Do? The Doctrine Of Atonement. Ebook. North Carolina: Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. http://www.danielakin.com/wp-content/uploads/old/Resource_580/10%20Jesus%20Christ.%20What%20Did%20He%20Do%20The%20Doctrine%20Of%20The%20Atonement.pdf.

Fitzsimmons, Bob. Understanding Franciscan Theology, Tradition And Spirituality. Ebook. North Carolina: Padre Pio Fraternity, 2019. https://swinzelerblog.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pgs.-3-17understanding-franciscan-theology-fun-manual.pdf.

Jesus And The Cross. Ebook. Community of the Gospel, 2019. http://www.communityofthegospel.org/Topics/Jesus_and_the_Cross.pdf.

Rohr, Richard. The Universal Christ: How A Forgotten Reality Can Change Everything We See, Hope For, And Believe. New York: Convergent Books, 2019.

Wentz, Joel. Atonement Theories. Ebook.https://static1.squarespace.com/static/532d9bc9e4b0371f1584ce19/t/5466481ae4b0a915edfd0229/1415989274874/AtonementTheories.pdf.

Wentz, Joel. Atonement Theories. Ebook. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/532d9bc9e4b0371f1584ce19/t/5466481ae4b0a915edfd0229/1415989274874/AtonementTheories.pdf.