Why Did He Have To Die?
January 9th, 2008 | by Scott |This is a question that surfaces regularly at our house these days. Our two oldest daughters have an awareness that Jesus was killed.
Placed on a Roman torture device and executed for political crimes.
They also have been taught that Jesus was perfect. He never did anything wrong. Was the greatest man who ever lived. They know that He is accorded our love and gratitude.
And so they sense a profound sense of injustice, as if a great wrong has been perpetrated against this nice man. Or that something is missing from the story that we are telling.
And so they ask: why did Jesus have to die?
And that’s a hard question to answer. Whose point of view do we ask that question? The Romans saw an insurrectionist, the Jews a blasphemer.
In the light of the burgeoning atonement debate there are other questions that emerge as well. Did Jesus have to die? And equally important, was that His intent?
The traditional pat answer that I would have given in the past is that Jesus died for our sins, taking them all upon us. That the price had to be paid and the price could only be paid by the ultimate penalty: death. Our rightful death because of our sinful ways was carried out by Christ in our place. As the old contemporary Christian song proclaimed it was a “Great Exchange.” His life for mine. And as a result God’s Justice was satisfied.
As I’ve studied and delved into the Scripture and keyed in to the growing debate I realize that there is more to the story. That the nuance has often been left behind. I’ve also learned that the substitution theory was a later development not fully proposed until the very end of the 11th century.
What did the early church believe about the death of Christ? What are we to learn by digging deeper into the meaning of atonement.
Using the excellent book, Stricken By God, I was us to consider a fuller answer to that question: why did He have to die?
Over the next few weeks we will delve into the meaning of the cross. I think that as we proceed we will see even more beauty in the life and death of Christ than we ever before imagined.
—————-
Now playing: Gordon Lightfoot - Canadian Railroad Trilogy
via FoxyTunes
13 Responses to “Why Did He Have To Die?”
By justin on Jan 9, 2008 | Reply
uh oh.
questioning substitutionary atonement doesn’t typically evoke rational discourse.
good luck.
By Scott on Jan 9, 2008 | Reply
There is a way to thoughtfully engage in this. I won’t be attacking substitutionary atonement but instead seek to find a more fleshed out understanding of what the cross truly accomplished.
By LukeD on Jan 9, 2008 | Reply
So I’m sure this will be explained in greater detail over your upcoming posts, but as a primer:
Are you rejecting substitutionary atonement as the answer, or are you suggesting that it is only a part of the answer?
I look forward to the series.
By Scott on Jan 9, 2008 | Reply
Great question. I believe that our traditional view of substitutionary atonement is incomplete. Substitution took place. But what does that mean?
By len on Jan 9, 2008 | Reply
Scott, I do believe that Brian McLaren would be proud of that answer.
By Scott on Jan 9, 2008 | Reply
Evasive enough for you?
Seriously, I do reject the Anselmian notion of Atonement. That does not mean that I reject the idea of Substitution but that is is embedded in something far deeper and indicative of God’s Loving Kindness.
By th on Jan 10, 2008 | Reply
scott,
I’m deeply interested and increasingly invested in this topic!
I agree that the idea of substitution has a place at the table. One can’t get away from that notion throughout the New Testament. But it’s amazing how many other ways the writers of the NT understood Jesus’ death. On that note, have you read Joel B. Green’s recovering the scandal of the cross?
I look forward to reading your entries on this subject over the upcoming weeks.
By Scott on Jan 10, 2008 | Reply
TH, I will look forward to your involvement. I haven’t read Green’s book but I will look into it. It’s more the idea of satisfaction that I reject in the penal substitution model than the idea of substitution itself.
If the Anselmian notion is true than a number of questions emerge that we are unable to provide sufficient answers for.
By len on Jan 10, 2008 | Reply
Scott,
last year you did a Top-10 list of favorite worship songs. (Remember when you used to do top-10 lists? Come on man, give us another one)
You said that “In Christ Alone” was your favorite. I assume that is the song which begins “In Christ alone, my hope is found……” If so, that song very much centers on the satisfaction view of atonement. Do I have the wrong song in mind? If not, aren’t you contradicting yourself?
By Scott on Jan 10, 2008 | Reply
Len, you are right. I did state that as my favorite and it is very penal substitution oriented.
Make no mistake that for years I clung to that understanding without nuance or variation. I view it not as contradicting myself but continually being willing to grow in my knowledge and understanding.
I’m with NT Wright on this song in recommending that instead of singing “Till on that cross as Jesus died//The wrath of God was satisfied” we should sing that “The love of God was satisfied”. Otherwise I no longer place it on my list.
The fatal flaw of penal substitution is it places wrath at the center of the cross rather than love.
By Justin on Jan 10, 2008 | Reply
Every time I sing that song, I think about that. Its such a rich song. Very different from a lot of crap worship music these days. Putting love in instead of wrath is a great idea.
By len on Jan 18, 2008 | Reply
Scott, I am looking forward to this discussion, but I have to wonder if it is going to truly be a discussion. It sounds to me like you have already dismissed completely the idea of substitution. Do you seriously mean that “In Christ Alone” suffers that much from the one word “wrath”? So much so that you evidently cannot tolerate the concept of substitution in worship music? I don’t believe that the wrath of God is antithetical to the love of God.
Maybe I am seeing something here that isn’t reality. I hope that is the case. But I have to wonder if you will allow those of us who embrace the substitionary atonement of Christ as central to the gospel to have a place at the table? If you have already dismissed this idea then so be it. It is your blog and I will read and stay out of the discussion. If you are saying that Jesus died for our sins and there is even more to it than that……..count me in. I firmly believe we don’t come close to understanding the full implications of the cross and resurrection.
By Scott on Jan 18, 2008 | Reply
Len, I think you might be reading more into this than what I have said. With penal substitutionary atonement as the predominant evangelical theory I can’t dismiss it out of hand. But I will argue that it is not the greatest understanding of the atonement.