Jesus: He Died Because...

This post are some comments on this week's Sabbath School lesson, Lesson 10, The Meaning of His Death.

How would you complete the sentence, "Jesus died because...?" That's the question this week's lesson attempts to answer. This is a question people spend entire lifetimes trying to figure out, and the Christian church has been trying to come up with the definitive answer for nearly 2,000 years now. So I doubt spending a week on it is going to make much of a difference one way or another. In fact, I think we all have some pretty strong opinions about what Jesus' death means, what it accomplished, and how. Going through it again probably isn't going to change things much, if any.

The lesson emphasizes the importance of the substitutionary aspect of the atonement. Tuesday and Wednesday lessons briefly touch upon three other ways of looking at the atonement: ransom, satisfaction (of "God's wrath"), and reconciliation. Throughout this week's lesson, though never directly mentioned but alluded to, almost in a dismissive and derogatory way, is the moral influence theory of the atonement. There is another fairly recent (okay, it's almost a century old now) theory called Christus Victor (founded upon both the ransom and recapitulation theories) which is not mentioned at all.

There was an article, "A Multifaceted Gospel," in Christianity Today a short while back that proposed that Christians ought to look at the different theories of the atonement as different facets contributing a little bit to the understanding of the whole. In other words, there is no "best" or no single "right" way of understanding the atonement; rather all the pieces must be taken together if we are to better understand what Jesus' death means. (But also see this article and this other article where CT defends the penal/substitution theories as being at the center of the gospel.)

In one of my recent posts reviewing George Knight's book on the atonement, I noted that I am somewhat uncomfortable with the penal/substitution theory of the atonement. I don't dismiss it completely away, because there are a number of scriptural passages that seem to provide a strong basis for the theory. Perhaps I am uncomfortable with the emphasis historically and traditionally placed upon this particular theory of the atonement.

At this particular segment of my spiritual and Christian journey, I find that the Christus Victor (also examine this lengthy discussion comparing C.V. to Satisfaction/Substitution linked to from the previous C.V. page) theory best represents the God that I've come to know. This may or may not help you in your understanding.

Here are several other discussions specifically on this week's lesson:

• Walla Walla University's Good Word (15 min. audio + written study guide)
• Jonathan Gallagher's Sabbath School discussion (1 hour audio + written study guide)
• Ron Corson's counterpoint response to this week's Sabbath School study guide (blog post)
• Spectrum Magazine's online Sabbath School commentary (reader comments follow main commentary)

I provide all the links in this blog entry to show that there is more than one way to consider Christ's atonement work. I think that it is important to become acquainted with different ways of approaching the "diamond" that is Christ's atoning work for us. I believe that by seeing the atonement from multiple perspectives, it can enrich and deepen our understanding and appreciation of God's love for us.