Right Left Whatever

Why did Jesus die?

Since I am going to see The Passion of the Christ tomorrow, my next Sunday entry will be a review of that movie.

In the meantime, here's a few thoughts I have before going to see the movie.

Why did Jesus die?

The church I grew up in taught me that Jesus' death was because of my sins, that He provided what John calls propitiation. Liberal Christians deny this doctrine, but it's in the Bible. Those who say they interpret the Bible differently are doing so by disregarding what it says clearly and simply. In the Unitarian tradition, into which I strayed for a while, William Ellery Channing delivered a sermon, Unitarian Christianity, where he claims that the doctrine of Atonement must be false because it is based on a hateful, violent God, and besides, it just isn't mentioned that much in the New Testament.

To respond to the first point: Is God hateful and violent? Well, yes and no. We know from the Torah that He is very adamant that we have no other gods before Him. Those who worshipped other Gods were commanded to be killed. Those who worshipped God without respect for the holiness of His tabernacle and its accoutrements were killed. Then why is Jesus so different than the God of Exodus and Leviticus? I don't know a definitive answer, but I think it may have to do with what it says in John 3:17, that Jesus came to save the world, not condemn it. Since He revealed God's grace and truth, it was no longer appropriate for God's Law to be the way to approach Him, it was now through God's grace - not that anyone in Old Testament times could keep the whole Law either, however. I think it was based on attitude - love the Lord your God with all your heart. God's grace would be revealed to anyone who did so, whether or not they knew all the details of Jesus' Atonement. Just my thoughts. Am I right? Probably not, at least in all the details. I don't know all the details of the workings of God's grace.

Now addressing the second point: Is the Atonement talked about a lot in the New Testament, or is it just a secondary topic which has been taken out of context?

Let's search: Looking for the word "ransom" we find Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45, and 1 Timothy 2:6

We also have references from the other Gospels and Acts:Luke 24:46, John 3:14-17, Acts 8:26-38

And from the other epistles of the New Testament (ok - enough linking - get out your Bible and follow along)
Romans 5:10, 1 Corinthians 2:2, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 1:7, Philippians 2:8, Colossians 1:14, 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, Hebrews 9:28, 1 Peter 1:18-19, 1 John 2:2, Revelation 5:9-10.

I've listed references from every book of the New Testament except 2 Thessalonians, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. These are shorter books dealing mainly with other issues such as pastoral concerns or apostasy. So there are references to the Atonement in 18 of 27 books, and I've only listed one from each of those books. Some books, such as Romans, 1 John, and the Gospel of John have many more references to this event and doctrine. For Channing to say that the Atonement is just a peripheral issue in the New Testament makes me think that he never read the New Testament (or read it once and promptly forgot what it said), was a sloppy scholar, or was just plain lying, possibly unconsciously by stretching the truth, to promote his own bias.

I read a commentator recently, talking about The Passion, that the Atonement is just one possible interpration of the New Testament. If words mean what authors write them to mean, then that opinion is just outright wrong. When Paul, John, and Peter all say that Christ died for us, I cannot think of any interpretation of that which says Christ did not die for us.

Posted by joelfuhrmann at February 24, 2004 10:14 PM