New insight of why Jesus Christ died
The story is told of a six-year-old boy, who with his parents dropped in at a chapel. In that chapel was a realistic image of Jesus on the cross. The little boy had never seen a crucifix. Now, seeing for the first time the bleeding and disfigured Jesus depicted on the cross, he was so overcome with horror, that he was unable to bear the sight. He fled from the chapel, terrified.
Crucifixion was the typical oriental mode of execution. It was introduced to the west by the Persians. The historian Herodotus tells us that in 519 BC, three thousand rebels were crucified in Babylonia. Crucifixion was later taken over by the Romans as a means of punishment. They used it extensively. However it was so unmercifully cruel and fearsome, that crucifixion was considered too degrading for Roman Citizens. It was reserved for slaves and non-romans, and among the non Romans, for the lowest kind of criminal. For Jews, it was a visible sign of God’s curse (Deut. 21:23 Gal. 3:13) It was not possible for anyone to be subjected to a greater ignominy than to undergo crucifixion.
It is unfortunate that over the centuries, Christians have become so familiar with the crucifix, that the sight of it no longer disturbs them. Since the middle ages, they have made crucifixes of gold, inlaid them with precious stones, and used them as ornaments and decorations. To a large extent, they have become immune to the brutality involved in nailing a human being on a cross
The death of Jesus as redeeming
“Reading the Bible with the eyes of the poor is a different thing from reading it with a full belly. If it is read in the light of the experience and hopes of the oppressed, the Bible’s revolutionary themes - promise, exodus, resurrection and spirit – come alive.”
- Jugen Moltmann.
It is to the death of Jesus that we attribute our salvation. Dying you destroyed our Death. It is at this point that a question emerges. The death of Jesus, as all crucifixions, was cruel and horrifying. It was also an unjust condemnation of an innocent person. It was the result of a betrayal by Judas, blatant prejudice on the part of the chief priests, and Pilate’s cowardice, when threatened by the priests and the crowd.now the question is how can such a disgraceful event bring about the salvation of humankind? How the most humiliating death imaginable could, free people from sin and restore their relationship with God? Let us briefly consider the chief explanations which have been given in the course of church history.
1) The theory of the price paid to the devil.
This theory has a background dating back to ancient times, when slaves were redeemed by payment of a sum of money. In pagan religions of that time, if a slave had succeeded in collecting the required sum, he first paid it to the temple treasury. Subsequently, he went to the temple accompanied by his master who received the purchase money from the treasury.
The result was that the slave was considered to have become the property of God. As the new owner and master, the god immediately declared the slave bought and redeemed by him. In other instances a master would release his slave on acceptance of a sum of money from the slave’s parents or friends. Many early theologians interpreted the New Testament use of the word redemption taking the cue from this manner of redeeming slaves. In Romans 7:14 it is said that man is sold to the power of sin. There is no possibility for man to save himself. Nor can he pay any price to be freed from the power of sin. As the Psalmist has written, in no way can a man redeem himself, or pay his own ransom to God. Too high is the price to redeem one’s life. (Ps. 49:8-9). It was in this situation, that Jesus stepped in and paid the ransom. This was how man was redeemed because he offered the ransom required for human sin. He is our Saviour.
To whom was the ransom paid? The church father Origen (185—254) quotes Acts 20-28; “keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, in which you tend the church of God that He acquired with His own blood” According to Origen, Jesus paid the price of his blood to the devil.
1 Peter 1.18 states thus “You were ransom not by ‘perishable things like silver or gold but with the precious blood of Christ as of a spotless unblemished lamb.”
Commenting on this verse, St Ambrose (339 -397) says the price of our liberty was the blood of Christ, which necessarily had to be paid to whom we were sold to because of our sins
(that is to the devil). Similarly, St Augustine ( 354 - 430) writes “In this liberation the price paid for us was the blood of Christ. Accepting this price, the devil was not enriched, but bound. The price was paid so that we may be released from his bonds’ Note that in this theory, God and the devil are not only considered to be equals but the devil even dictates terms to God. The theory of the price paid to the devil has now been discarded. It is only of historical interest in the study of theology.
2) The theory of the price paid to the Father
From the 12th century onwards, theologians gradually realised the inadequacy of any explanation of human salvation based on ransom paid to the devil. Consequently’, another theory emerged.the price, this new theory claimed, was not paid to the devil, but to God the Father. Thus, the theologian Peter Lombard (1095 — 1168) held, “This is the price of
our reconciliation which Christ offered to the Father, that he may be placated.”.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) also holds the same opinion. (Summa Theologica P 3 Q 48 a 4 ad 3) This theory became a kind of theological system in the book “Deus Homo” of St. Ans ( 10 — 1109) St. Anslem rejected any explanation of redemption as a ransom paid to the devil, instead he developed a theory of satisfaction. In the formulation of his theory, he was inspired by two factors, feudal legal ideas, and the penitential customs of the medieval church. For him redemption was essentially the restoration of the order of creation which has been distorted by sin.
The distortion of creation is a dishonour to the Creator. St. Anslem is quite categorical that God’s mercy cannot bypass the restitution of his honour. It can be done only by punishment of the wrong doer. If that was not so, God’s mercy would contradict His justice. Therefore, if a creature sinned, God has to exact punishment. He cannot be merciful, because He has to be just to Himself, and being just to Himself means that He is bound to preserve “the honour of His self respect”. It is not right for God to .forgive in such a manner that it upsets the proper order, which demands punishment for sin. Humans then should offer satisfaction for the sins which they have committed.
However they cannot offer -us -satisfaction, what they. already owe to God. Satisfaction can only be a work of supererogation. This is not possible, because humans owe everything to God. That is why Jesus, born without sin, offered. His life as satisfaction for all. In St. Anslem’s theory, Jesus does not strictly take the place of sinners. He performs a unique deed, which in God’s eyes.make satisfaction for the debt which humankind has incurred, because of its sins. The theory evidently employs analogues from jurisprudence. “Sin” is primarily understood in the judicial order. That is, sin is a violation of a law, the law of Divine law rewards for virtue and punishes for vice. An earlier Church Fáthet Tertullian (160 — 225) was by profession, a lawyer. He was struck by the absurdity of forgiveness and reconciliation without punishment and restitution. In any society anyone guilty of
crime has either to make some satisfaction or to pay a penalty. That was the correct legal way of doing things. Applying similar legal principles to sin against God, if the sinner does not repent, it is necessary that punishment be inflicted on him. It is vindictive punishment If he does repent, he has voluntarily to accept some punishment to make up for his crime. In this case, the punishment is not vindictive, but is a form of satisfaction. Moreover punishment for sin has to be in proportion to the seriousness of the sin Now, the gravity of offences are measured by the dignity of the one offended and because God is infinite, any sin harms His infinite honour. Therefore it requires infinite satisfaction. All humans are finite, and it is not possible for them to make adequate satisfaction. Is there a way out?
Yes. If an infinite person offers satisfaction, then it will be of infinite value, and adequate to make up for human sin. This is precisely what Jesus did. When human beings were in a helpless situation, doomed to perish because of their inability to make enough satisfaction, the Son of God Himself assumed human nature; He accepted the punishment due to and deserved by ‘humans He offered infinite satisfaction and thus liberatedfrom the bondage of sin.
Concept of God
It is appalling that many Christians still think that the Father actually willed the crucifixion of Jesus In fact, they think, the Father engineered the whole sequence of events leading to Jesus’ death on Calvary, because it appeased His honour. Not only do lay Christians harbour this belief, but so do some of the clergy. It is not infrequent that during the season of Lent, and particularly in the Holy Week, we hear homilys preached in this manner. The treatment of the death of Jesus begins with the traditional premise in the Roman theology of redemption; “No man not even the holiest was able to take upon himself the sins, of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all.” The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son. who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons and constitutes himself, as head of all mankind. makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.. Moreover, Jesus’, violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances but a part of the mystery of God’s plan and the Father handed His son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with Himself.
What is the image of God operating behind such statements? It shows the Father in a very negative light. He demands that an innocent person, Jesus should undergo torture and death as reparation. it is an unworthy and unscriptural notion of God, which borders on blasphemy. Even though widely prevalent, the falsity and absurdity of this understanding is evident. A cursory study of biblical teaching both in the’ Old and the New Testaments would suffice to ‘demonstrate its unacceptability.
a) Influenced by the• practices of the Canaanites offering of child sacrifices to the god Molek, became a common feature in Israel during the latter part of the Monarchy.
Apparently the gruesome ritual was sanctioned by some of the wicked kings specially by Manasseh (692 - 639 BC See 2 Kings 21 -2-9 Micah 6 6-8).
What is of interest to us is that such sacrifices were condemned in no unmistakable terms. Among many texts see Levit. 18 21: 20, 1-5, Deut. 18 10: 12, Jer. 7,3,32,35; Ezech. 20.31. Deutronomy decries it as an abomination in the sight of. Yehweh. Leviticus classifies child sacrifices as so serious ‘a crime, that any one guilty of committing it is cut off from God ’s people. According to Jeremiah, it is so awful and repugnant that it has never entered God’s mind.in view of the unreserved condemnation of child sacrifies in the Old Testament, how is it possible to say that the .Father wished and even demanded from His son, the sacrifice of His life as a condition for the forgiveness and redemption of people?
Towards understanding
As Jesus saw it in His time, the world was in a state of estrangement from God and from itself. The divisions among people, rejection and marginalization and religious and political oppression were against God’s will. It was God’s will that this situation should change. The message of Jesus was that the good news that God was planning to do so, to bring about new society, a new network of relationship among all people. These relationships would no longer be based on violence and alienation, but on love, acceptance, justice, forgiveness and so on. This new society would be the Kingdom of God, Because everything would be surrendered to God and to His will. As a loving Father, His will is, of course, the total well being of every single human being. Thus Jesus made a resounding call to his countrymen for a new outlook, a new manner of being religious and a completely new way of life. (Mk 1.15)
Let us suppose that the people accepted the call of Jesus, that they changed, their attitude towards other ethnic groups (the Gentiles) races (the Samaritans) the alienated ( the poor, lepers, sinners) and even enemies (the Romans). That all political and religious oppression ceased, and all the people began to live according to the values of the Kingdom, which Jesus proclaimed. Had that happened, there would have been no need for Jesus to die on the cross, and without the tragedy of Calvary, humankind would have been reconciled with God.
It is not a correct legally constituted, order of things that is disturbed by sin, as Tertullian thought. Sin injures a relationship with a person. Therefore the offence is not put right by the infliction of pain and punishment. It can only be done by a change of heart impelled by love. Two persons at enmity with each other can be bound together with a chain, but still they will remain enemies. They are reconciled and become friends only if and when they change their attitude and begin to accept and to love one another. Only love reconciles and unites.
God is love (1 John 4.8 and 16). It is against God’s very nature to will torture and death. The life of Jesus ended in terrible suffering not according to God’s will but it was largely the work of religious leaders. What God did will for Jesus was a noble, generous and love filled life which revealed to people his own - nature. The thought of God as a loving Father gripped the consciousness of Jesus. His was a mission of love- - and to. that mission He was totally faithful. In Jesus we can see a human being whose life is completely filled with the love which is of God. When, as a consequence of His life of self giving, He had to face the option of death. Jesus preferred to die rather than to be unfaithful to God.
No one has greater love than this to lay down one’s life for one’s friends, (John 15 .13 ) Jesus did not accept death because the Father forced Him to, but because His love demanded it from Him. God raised Jesus from the dead. The resurrection shows that God has approved this human life of Jesus He has accepted it in all its concreteness and particularity, including all the suffering, temptations and struggles that Jesus had to undergo.
Jesus and us
The message of the Kingdom, which Jesus preached and the call to live its values, is valid for all people from then on. It is so for us today. To be reconciled and united with God, and to be redeemed, everyone is called upon to change his or her mentality and outlook. This is the meaning of repentance. Concomitant with repentance is the following of Jesus in His way of life. That is living in love and self sacrifice for others. Redemption therefore does not occur automatically, It demands personal and free participation in the process of transformation. Jesus is the first fruit, those who follow Him in His manner of life will be made alive in Him. (lcor. 15,20-28)
The Spirit of Jesus is the spirit of love and unity. To those who are open to receive, Jesus communicates the gracious power of His Spirit. It enables them to respond to the divine initiative, and to live as Jesus did, according to the values of the Kingdom. Thus is brought to realization, the full transformation and liberation both of individuals and of societies, that is intended by God and is His will.
Conclusion
The redemptive work of Jesus consists in. the establishment of love, peace and unity among all people, individually and collectively, and relating them to God. Negatively it consists in the defeat of all forms of sin and evil. The teaching on redemption is often presented in the New Testament by means of images. Acquital of the accused in a court of law. the payment of ransom for the release of a slave and purification by blood are some of these. However we should neither interpret them literally, nor historicise them.
“Since human-beings could make up no payment to God, and God need make no payment to the devil, the purpose of the incarnation could not be that of making any payment at all. It could be only an act of love”. (Peter Abelard 1079 — 1142) I