Jesus is NOT the Cross
Why did Jesus, the centerpiece of Christianity die? It's interesting how many people believe that the cross was the way Jesus paid our debt to God (or the Devil). There is absolutely no doubt that Jesus died for our sin. But some people think He died because of our sins and some think He died to forgive our sins. There is a distinct separation between the two and there is no shortage of people ready to speculate on them. Some say Jesus paid our debt to God, others say He paid the Devil, and still others say He led by example. These ideas have been debated throughout history, but one idea of Penal Substitution has dominated the playing field for almost 1,000 years. However, it has recently been challenged by the very ideas that it had silenced so many years before. Penal Substitution is a refinement of a slightly older idea known as Satisfaction. For the thousand years before Penal Substitution was created, two ideas were formed about the death of Jesus. One was Ransom, and the other was Moral Influence. The more prevalent of the two was Moral Influence.
What Do the Theories Say?
The Satisfaction (~1100 C.E.) and Penal Substitution (~1800 C.E.) theories essentially say the same thing, but in different terms: Christ died to pay a debt to God. The Satisfaction theory states that Christ had to die in order to pay our debt of honor to God because we had dishonored him with. Otherwise we would have to be punished for God to regain His honor. Penal Substitution theory states that Christ had to die in order to pay a legal debt to God because all crime (or sin) requires punishment.
The Ransom theory (~330 C.E.) states that Adam and Eve, by sinning, forfeited humanity over to the Devil. Since they forfeited humanity to the Devil, God had to pay the Devil to get them back. God and the Devil agreed that God's son would be sufficient to pay the debt, but because Jesus never sinned, the Devil could not keep Him. Jesus was therefore set free, but our debt was paid nonetheless.
The Moral Influence theory (~200 C.E.) states that Jesus' crucifixion was to draw out our sin and to give us a holy alternative. It was to expose our sin so that we could see it and deal with it. Jesus also gave us an example to follow.
Satisfaction & Penal Substitution Theories
The Satisfaction and Penal Substitution theories are nearly identical with the only deviation being honor vs. legality. I will refute them through both logic and scripture combined. The major issues with these theories are that they say Jesus paid our debt, God had to kill Himself, God is incapable of forgiveness without murder, God is bound to a system, Jesus is not the same as God, and Jesus was protecting us from God.
The initial point of these theories is that Jesus died to pay humanity's debt to God. The argument is that man had to be punished for sin so either God could reclaim His honor or retributive justice could be served. This punishment is the debt that we owe to God because of our sin. Jesus came and took that punishment so we could be free from it. There is a fairly evident issue in those statements; how did Jesus take our punishment? For that to be answered, we have to answer what our punishment would have been had we not been saved. I think most, if not all, Christians would agree that the punishment is some sort of eternal separation from God, whether it be final destruction or eternal torture. If Jesus was not eternally separated from God, then how did He take our punishment? The answer is that He did not and; moreover, He could not. Jesus cannot be separated from God because God and Jesus are one (John 10:30). So did Jesus pay our debt? No.
The other problems I see with these theories are that they undermine God's omnipotence and state that God cannot forgive or protect humans from eternal separation unless justice is satisfied. Because they state that Jesus must actually sacrifice Himself to appease Justice, Justice becomes a sort of god that that the Trinity is subject to. We know that God is Jesus and Jesus is the perfect revelation of who God is through many instances in scripture (Hebrews 1:3). So if Jesus is God, then God was sacrificing Himself to the god, Justice, to save humanity from eternal separation from God. This brings out another issue: God is this god ,Justice, that must be appeased. Therefore, God must be bipolar and Jesus is His benign side and the Father is the "just", angry, vengeful side. This essentially means that God was a blood-thirsty sacrificial god named Justice, who required blood of either us or His son. Jesus in this idea is no longer the ultimate revelation of God, but is God's counter-balance, Love. Jesus loved enough to sacrifice Himself. Jesus essentially becomes our shield from God in this scenario. The last issue with this is that Jesus forgave people on numerous occasions without the debt or sacrifice being paid to God (Luke 5:23, 7:48, Matthew 9:5, etc.). This is a definite indicator that God did not need a sacrifice to quell His wrath and that God was benign and loving enough to forgive us without cause or reason. This is a god who transcends legal and honorable systems and instates systems of faith, hope, and love, making legality and honor invalid.
This theory, when simply stated seems to make sense, but when you truly begin to dissect it, it falls apart. God is not bipolar. God is bigger than sin. God and Jesus are not different. We don't need protection from God. This theory cannot hold it's own under the weight of the assumptions behind it and I would not advise following it.
The other problems I see with these theories are that they undermine God's omnipotence and state that God cannot forgive or protect humans from eternal separation unless justice is satisfied. Because they state that Jesus must actually sacrifice Himself to appease Justice, Justice becomes a sort of god that that the Trinity is subject to. We know that God is Jesus and Jesus is the perfect revelation of who God is through many instances in scripture (Hebrews 1:3). So if Jesus is God, then God was sacrificing Himself to the god, Justice, to save humanity from eternal separation from God. This brings out another issue: God is this god ,Justice, that must be appeased. Therefore, God must be bipolar and Jesus is His benign side and the Father is the "just", angry, vengeful side. This essentially means that God was a blood-thirsty sacrificial god named Justice, who required blood of either us or His son. Jesus in this idea is no longer the ultimate revelation of God, but is God's counter-balance, Love. Jesus loved enough to sacrifice Himself. Jesus essentially becomes our shield from God in this scenario. The last issue with this is that Jesus forgave people on numerous occasions without the debt or sacrifice being paid to God (Luke 5:23, 7:48, Matthew 9:5, etc.). This is a definite indicator that God did not need a sacrifice to quell His wrath and that God was benign and loving enough to forgive us without cause or reason. This is a god who transcends legal and honorable systems and instates systems of faith, hope, and love, making legality and honor invalid.
This theory, when simply stated seems to make sense, but when you truly begin to dissect it, it falls apart. God is not bipolar. God is bigger than sin. God and Jesus are not different. We don't need protection from God. This theory cannot hold it's own under the weight of the assumptions behind it and I would not advise following it.
Ransom Theory
Ransom theory is sounder than the Satisfaction and Penal Substitution theories because it doesn't make God out to be a monster confined to His own blood-lust. But it is still focused on debt. The main issues with this theory are that it says Jesus paid our debt, God had to pay the Devil off, God was subject to the Devil, and God is incapable of forgiving us.
The initial point of this theory is a fatal flaw; it starts the same as the last two with Jesus paying our debt. However, this time it states that Jesus paid our debt to the Devil. This is a major issue because it goes against everything that we know about God. It makes God into a god. It places Law and Justice above God as a judge over God and the Devil. It says that the Devil can overpower God enough to force God to sacrifice Himself. It makes God a god and the Devil a fellow and equal god, who are both subject to a larger god, Law and Justice. Allow me to make a blunt statement: God and the Devil are NOT equal (1 John 4:4)! The Devil cannot control God and limit who God is by using us as bargaining chips. The Devil cannot limit God's forgiveness!
There is a hidden point in this that can be revealed through logical progression and it is UGLY! If God was subject to the Devil and had to sacrifice Himself as Jesus in order to pay the Devil, then the Devil would have won, not Jesus. As I mentioned in the refutation of the Satisfaction and Penal Substitution theories: if Jesus was not eternally separated from God, then He did not receive our punishment. Had Jesus truly been a payment for our debt to the Devil, then He would have to be eternally separated from God. If Jesus was eternally separated from God, then the Devil would have won. A final issue is that Jesus forgave us before the cross and could; therefore, forgive our sins without the sacrifice.
At first, this theory would seem to be sounder than the Satisfaction and Penal Substitution theories due to God having His proper unity with Christ. The issues are that it denies God's sovereignty over the Devil. It denies that God can and did forgive us without sacrifice. God defeated the Devil through Jesus. Jesus did not lose to the Devil and because of that, He did not bear our punishment. It is a seemingly better choice than the other two, but it still leaves me expecting more.
There is a hidden point in this that can be revealed through logical progression and it is UGLY! If God was subject to the Devil and had to sacrifice Himself as Jesus in order to pay the Devil, then the Devil would have won, not Jesus. As I mentioned in the refutation of the Satisfaction and Penal Substitution theories: if Jesus was not eternally separated from God, then He did not receive our punishment. Had Jesus truly been a payment for our debt to the Devil, then He would have to be eternally separated from God. If Jesus was eternally separated from God, then the Devil would have won. A final issue is that Jesus forgave us before the cross and could; therefore, forgive our sins without the sacrifice.
At first, this theory would seem to be sounder than the Satisfaction and Penal Substitution theories due to God having His proper unity with Christ. The issues are that it denies God's sovereignty over the Devil. It denies that God can and did forgive us without sacrifice. God defeated the Devil through Jesus. Jesus did not lose to the Devil and because of that, He did not bear our punishment. It is a seemingly better choice than the other two, but it still leaves me expecting more.
Moral Influence Theory
There is relatively little wrong with the Moral Influence theory. Though some critics will say that it doesn't recognize the severity of sin, it means that humans save themselves, it denies the importance of Jesus' death, and it contradicts scripture. The issues with these arguments are that they focus on what the theory doesn't cover and they deny the idea of Jesus reshaping our morals. A good portion of Jesus' message was about morals and Jesus was the perfect example of all of them. If there is anything wrong with this theory, it's that it isn't in-depth enough in it's explanation.
The thought that this theory doesn't recognize the severity of sin is a ludicrous statement because it insinuates that sin is too big for God and is superior to God. If God can't forgive sin without brutally murdering His son, then there is an issue. This ignores the fact that Jesus forgave many sins before He died and therefore, the cross was not necessary for God to forgive sins. God was, is, and always will be bigger than sin (Romans 5:20).
The idea that this theory means that humans save themselves is a straw man argument; it doesn't say humans save themselves and it doesn't logically progress to that. Jesus revealed how far our sin had come by showing us that if God were to come among us, we would brutally murder Him in one of the worst ways possible. We are saved because God is gracious and loving, so He forgives us, not because of our works (Ephesians 2:8). Our works are the fruit of our faith and our faith is given by God (James 2:18). Jesus did accomplish things with His death, such as defeating the Devil and the grave as well as making us His righteousness through faith in Him. Jesus is bigger than sin, the Devil, and the grave. He did not need to satisfy them in order to give us forgiveness and righteousness. Forgiveness and righteousness comes through faith in Him and that is exclusively expressed in scripture (Romans 3:22, 5:1, Philippians 3:9).
The Moral Influence theory does not deny the significance of Jesus' death whatsoever. It was the earliest and most taught and widely accepted theory of Jesus' death for almost 1,000 years because the Ransom theory didn't take over the church until the Satisfaction theory was being developed. It says that Jesus' death was not to satisfy some burning thirst for blood of God and that God doesn't answer to the Devil. It says that Jesus' death was to reveal to us what our eyes could not see: the severity of sin and how far it had come. It says that Jesus' life and death offered us another way to live our lives that was free from both the law and sin (Romans 6:14, 7:1, Galatians 2:19, 3:13, Ephesians 2:15, Hebrews 7:19, 8:13).
The theory most definitely does not contradict scripture. There is no scripture that states that we had a debt to pay to God or that we belonged to the Devil. God did not have to have Jesus die for His satisfaction or to pay the Devil. The only scriptures that it could contradict are the scriptures that state Jesus died for our sins, was wounded for our transgressions, was broken for our sin, and so on. But, that is an invalid argument because it could very well mean that Jesus died as a result of our sins, was wounded because of our transgressions, was broken at the hand of our sins.... This would make sense because it was our atrocious sin that killed Him. We were so sinful that we committed the ultimate sin of murdering God. This would line up with the many scriptures in Acts that say that we murdered Jesus, not that God did (Acts 2:23, 3:15, 5:30, 7:52).
I believe that it is clear, the known nature of God through the perfect representation of Jesus is benign and loving, not vindictive and loathing. God did not have to pay Himself, the Devil, or Justice off. God does not have to submit to the Devil or Justice and He does not require penance. The Satisfaction and Penal Substitution theories depict an angry god who is more concerned with Honor or Justice than He is with His own son. The Ransom theory depicts a god who gets bullied by the Devil and was defeated by him. The only logical choice for me would be the Moral Influence theory that focuses on God's benevolence, love, and peace. We serve a God who is bigger than anything that we face and has our best interest at heart. Our God is perfect and does not answer to anyone. He is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. He gives us the example and His Spirit to guide us, our only mandate is that we allow Him to move in us.
The thought that this theory doesn't recognize the severity of sin is a ludicrous statement because it insinuates that sin is too big for God and is superior to God. If God can't forgive sin without brutally murdering His son, then there is an issue. This ignores the fact that Jesus forgave many sins before He died and therefore, the cross was not necessary for God to forgive sins. God was, is, and always will be bigger than sin (Romans 5:20).
The idea that this theory means that humans save themselves is a straw man argument; it doesn't say humans save themselves and it doesn't logically progress to that. Jesus revealed how far our sin had come by showing us that if God were to come among us, we would brutally murder Him in one of the worst ways possible. We are saved because God is gracious and loving, so He forgives us, not because of our works (Ephesians 2:8). Our works are the fruit of our faith and our faith is given by God (James 2:18). Jesus did accomplish things with His death, such as defeating the Devil and the grave as well as making us His righteousness through faith in Him. Jesus is bigger than sin, the Devil, and the grave. He did not need to satisfy them in order to give us forgiveness and righteousness. Forgiveness and righteousness comes through faith in Him and that is exclusively expressed in scripture (Romans 3:22, 5:1, Philippians 3:9).
The Moral Influence theory does not deny the significance of Jesus' death whatsoever. It was the earliest and most taught and widely accepted theory of Jesus' death for almost 1,000 years because the Ransom theory didn't take over the church until the Satisfaction theory was being developed. It says that Jesus' death was not to satisfy some burning thirst for blood of God and that God doesn't answer to the Devil. It says that Jesus' death was to reveal to us what our eyes could not see: the severity of sin and how far it had come. It says that Jesus' life and death offered us another way to live our lives that was free from both the law and sin (Romans 6:14, 7:1, Galatians 2:19, 3:13, Ephesians 2:15, Hebrews 7:19, 8:13).
The theory most definitely does not contradict scripture. There is no scripture that states that we had a debt to pay to God or that we belonged to the Devil. God did not have to have Jesus die for His satisfaction or to pay the Devil. The only scriptures that it could contradict are the scriptures that state Jesus died for our sins, was wounded for our transgressions, was broken for our sin, and so on. But, that is an invalid argument because it could very well mean that Jesus died as a result of our sins, was wounded because of our transgressions, was broken at the hand of our sins.... This would make sense because it was our atrocious sin that killed Him. We were so sinful that we committed the ultimate sin of murdering God. This would line up with the many scriptures in Acts that say that we murdered Jesus, not that God did (Acts 2:23, 3:15, 5:30, 7:52).
Conclusion
I believe that it is clear, the known nature of God through the perfect representation of Jesus is benign and loving, not vindictive and loathing. God did not have to pay Himself, the Devil, or Justice off. God does not have to submit to the Devil or Justice and He does not require penance. The Satisfaction and Penal Substitution theories depict an angry god who is more concerned with Honor or Justice than He is with His own son. The Ransom theory depicts a god who gets bullied by the Devil and was defeated by him. The only logical choice for me would be the Moral Influence theory that focuses on God's benevolence, love, and peace. We serve a God who is bigger than anything that we face and has our best interest at heart. Our God is perfect and does not answer to anyone. He is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. He gives us the example and His Spirit to guide us, our only mandate is that we allow Him to move in us.
No comments:
Post a Comment