When the Mel Gibson film, The Passion of the Christ, was viewed, it elicited some interesting reactions. The film portrays the last 12 hours of Jesus life but supplies no theological explanation as to the reason, or reasons, for His death. Many people saw the movie out of curiosity and/or because of the publicity, but have wondered if it was just a senseless act’ and example of man’s inhumanity to man. That’s understandable from the Biblically illiterate, but when ‘theologians’ and people ‘in the know’ ask that question then it makes you wonder why. If there is any maxim of scripture that is well-known, it is the truth that Jesus died for our sins (eg,. 1 Cor. 15:1ff). TIME magazine had an article sometime after the movie entitled Why Did Jesus Have To Die? – it even made the front cover for that edition – it is not a religious magazine but does have a religious section, perhaps to pretend to cater to all types, and they supposedly call in the ‘experts’ when discussing various issues. The article started with a little exerp from a discussion between 7 men, all members of some church, in a living room as they brainstormed Jesus’ death after seeing the film.
One says, What if God’s plan was that Jesus comes to earth and he does these teachings and he talks nice. You know, ‘love your enemy..’ and then he is taken away and not killed. Why in God’s plan did he have to suffer like this? Another in the group asks, God’s plan probably had to be more dramatic? Right, says another, attempting to imagine God’s thinking, you folks don’t get it. We gotta make something dramatic here. The first speaker chews it all over and comes to a conclusion: It physically had to happen…I can’t say why he had to suffer they way he did. But Christ had to die.
Now one can understand people with little knowledge of the Bible asking the question and it is a good, even vital, question to ask. But, as the article said, this question has divided theologians and clergy for centuries, with no end in sight. It is still possible to have a really good fight about the meaning of the cross.
Well then, we may well pose another question: Why then do the experts not know?! The article further stated, ..oddly enough, in many churches the issue of why Christ died is dead. A moment’s thought about that fact should stir us when we contemplate that Christ instituted His memorial supper as part of our worship and its focus is deliberately upon His death upon the cross. It’s obviously something He wants us to know about and contemplate deeply and regularly.
Part of the reason for the confusion is because the Bible declares that Jesus died for more than one reason: or to put it another way, He accomplished more than one thing by His suffering and death. There are over 60 reasons mentioned in Scripture as to why Jesus came and died. God was multi-talented and multi-skilled before we ever dreamed up those words. Besides, any housewife accomplishes more than one thing on a trip to town as a matter of fact:- I’ll visit so-and-so, get some groceries, pick up a script, get my hair done, and collect the kids from school on the way home.
The incredible thing is theologians can’t grasp this! One, mentioned in the article, said that The New Testament is just all over the map on the question of why Christ died. It’s amazing the disdain and disrespect so-called theologians show toward the inspired and infallible word of God. It’s true the New Testament says Jesus died to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:26), render powerless the Devil (Heb. 2:14,15), deliver us from the fear of death (Heb. 2:14,15), leave an example of obedient suffering (1 Pet. 2:21), reconcile the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19), redeem us from the curse of the Law (Gel. 3:13), redeem us from all iniquity (Titus 2:14), give Himself as a ransom (1 Tim. 2:6), offer Himself as a propitiation ((1 John 2:2), be Lord of the dead and the living (Rom. 14:9), destroy the Devil’s work (1 John 3:8), take away the sin of the world (John 1:29) and so on. All this and more simply highlights the depth and richness and magnitude of what He accomplished. It is the most momentous event in history. These statements are not all over the map, but are complementary. It seems it’s a problem akin to those who like to see contradiction in the N.T. when it says we are saved by grace, saved by faith, saved by works, saved by blood, saved by baptism, saved by calling on the name of the Lord etc. It is by harmonising Scripture that we interpret it correctly, because of the simple rule that no truth contradicts another truth.
Jesus died for our sins can be understood in the sense that he died because of the sins we committed against Him – ie. man’s inhumanity toward man. That’s true but if that was all there was to it then it would mean nothing more than the death of all others who have been victims of a miscarriage of justice and murder. As one wit said, The Bible could have ended with the death of Abel, a decent-enough man.
He died for our sins in another sense – and this is the primary thought – on behalf of our sins – accepting punishment on our behalf. Read Isa. 53:4-6: it is unmistakable that He suffered so we wouldn’t have to. Yet this wonderful fact is despised by many and offended by it. I don’t think we need a theory of atonement at all; I don’t think we need folks hanging on crosses and blood dripping and weird stuff (TIME article). Interestingly some objected to the movie because it is so gory, but what would you expect?! Man’s pride knows no bounds – he cannot accept that he is guilty to the extent that the death of the Son of God is required. This is what is so galling to the politically correct and those who think that culture and personal opinions are God. They see it as a disempowerment of mankind:- mankind’s redemption is being negotiated above its collective head (ie. it can’t set the agenda or make its own way out of the dilemma), and Christ, the Son – His life is required of Him. And, yes, it is humbling for it is God Himself who satisfies His own perfect righteousness, not us, and it is through the sacrifice of His Son, not us. He has supplied the credit to balance the book of justice. It shows how powerless we are (cf. Rom. 5) and it shows we don’t have the right to to define our own existence or claim rights such as a woman’s right to abortion, the right to kill the terminally ill, or the right to determine the boundaries of sexuality whether it be homosexual or heterosexual. One liberal R.DC. theologian quoted in the article said that the doctrine of the substitution of Christ for our sins: This was the most unfortunately successful idea in the history of Christian thought. He sees it as a form of social control: If I can persuade you that there’s a punishing God and that you deserve to be punished but I have some sort of way out for you, then that’s a very attractive theology. He’s right! God designed it to be attractive – it’s called gospel – good news. But just because it’s attractive doesn’t ipso facto make it false – or a form of social control.
Jesus died to break our heart. With the death of the Son of God we understand how sin is of such a nature that it will attack God Himself, that it is heinous, and that God would actually make the move to help us. Sin becomes entrenched and more acceptable – drastic cures are required. The flood of Noah was one response. Nothing unrighteous in that but you can’t keep doing that because sin is so entrenched in man from his youth that God would have to keep repeating it. A better solution is needed.
The Law was given to Israel and law only goes so far in restraining sin – it becomes a matter of curiosity and the prohibition arouses within us sinful desires, because, in part, we want to know why it is that God prohibits something (cf. Gen.3). Also note Rom. 7:8 where sin took occasion by the commandment. Sin wouldn’t exist without law and couldn’t do anything without law: as 1 Cor. 15:56 says, the strength of sin is the law. So sin took advantage of the law and slew me. It’s a strange conundrum isn’t it? As Rom. 7:12 says, the law is good and yet it is found to be unto death (v.10). What’s the problem? The problem is with man – we have a law too good for man and it ends up showing our exceedingly sinful nature (v.13) and consequently our deservedness of condemnation. It shows there is a great gulf between us and righteousness. We kid ourselves don’t we? 90% of those who think they’re going to heaven by keeping the Ten Commandments couldn’t name them if they tried! I suspect they wouldn’t even know what book of the Bible to find them to remind themselves.
The cross is to get us out of this idea that we are good enough to go to Heaven. Multitudes possess the idea that good people go to Heaven and I’m one of the good ones. If that’s true then Christ died in vain (Gal. 2:21). Law lacks motivation. It’s not enough to know right and wrong. Note Rom. 7:19 – I do what I don’t want to do and don’t do what I want to. If anything, the law should drive us to despair or drive us to Christ. Perhaps more accurately we should be driven to despair so that we will be driven to Christ. Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4). He fulfilled it (Matt.5:17,18)