Thanks J of N. It was a good read.
Let me try to summarise the theories and give my thoughts on them.
#1 The Moral Influence Theory
This teaches that Jesus lived and died to give us a a moral example through his actions. Augustine from the fourth century was a fan (as well as of the Ransom theory). The Holy Spirit helps bring about a moral change in ourselves (according to the article Augustine believed this change is entirely caused by the Holy Spirit because he didn't believe that we have free will as so can't choose to follow Jesus' moral example).
The reason for the cross in this theory is that Jesus was killed because he was a social and political radical. This makes sense to me, certainly as one strands anyway, and this basic idea was alluded to in a couple of posts above.
#2 The Ransom Theory
This focuses more on the actual death of Jesus. It essentially says that Jesus dies as a sacrifice either to Satan or to God (depending on the view taken in this theory) to pay the debt humanity inherited from the Fall.
To me, this theory does not explain why a death was needed at all. Why would God require Jesus (Himself) to die in order to remit all sin? I just don't see the link there.
#3 Christus Victor
Here, Jesus dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and Satan) in order to free us from their bondage. This is somewhat similar to the Ransom view but with the difference that there is no payment to Satan or to God. Evil is simply defeated thus setting us free.
This makes more sense to me than the Ransom theory as it does not include the concept of a payment, it's imply a victory, but the same question remains, at least in my mind. It still does not explain how a death, even Jesus' death, would achieve this.
#4 The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm)
Here Jesus' death satisfies the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution, the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. It pays back the injustice of human sin and so satisfies the justice of God. Historically, this theory developed in reaction to the Ransom theory: it is humanity that owes a debt (the debt of injustice) rather than God owing a debt to Satan. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God, and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin, and to satisfy the justice of God.
Again, it seems to me that this still does not answer the question why does a death have to occur to do this. Why does this mechanism have to be used?
#5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory
This is a development of Anselm’s Satisfaction theory made during the Reformation. It adds a more legal (or forensic) framework into the notion of the cross as satisfaction. Jesus dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. He is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) to satisfy God's justice and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus has been punished in our place thus way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of imputed righteousness is postulated.
My reaction is going to sound boring now but I simply fail to see how Jesus' actual death actually does this. How can his death transfer his righteousness to us. It just doesn't make sense to me.
#6 The Governmental Theory
This is a slight variation of the Penal Substitutionary theory. The main difference is the extent to which Jesus suffered. Jesus similarly suffers the punishment of our sin to propitiate God’s wrath but he does not take the exact punishment we deserve. He dies on the cross therefore to demonstrate the displeasure of God towards sin. He died to display God’s wrath against sin and the high price which must be paid, but not to specifically satisfy that particular wrath.
This makes the most sense to me so far in that it says that God takes our sin seriously and wants us to know that. I personally wouldn't be able to worship a God who down played or trivialised the harm we do to others or suffer ourselves from human wrongdoing.
#7 The Scapegoat Theory
A modern theory, here Jesus dies as the scapegoat of humanity. It moves away from the idea that Jesus died in order to act upon God (as in PSA, Satisfaction, or Governmental) or as payment to Satan (as in Ransom). Scapegoating therefore is considered to be a form of non-violent atonement, in that Jesus is not a sacrifice but a victim. James Allison summarizes the Scapegoating Theory like this, “Christianity is a priestly religion which understands that it is God’s overcoming of our violence by substituting himself for the victim of our typical sacrifices that opens up our being able to enjoy the fullness of creation as if death were not.”
I'm not sure what Allison means by "the victim of our typical sacrifices" here. I don't know if anyone can shed light on this or this theory in general?
So to conclude, this is obviously a very brief overall of the theories and I'm sure misses out a lot of the meanings and nuances. I still can't see why God needs Jesus to die in order to bring about a reconciliation or restoration with us and I don't understand at all the whole concept of sacr.ifice and how that's supposed to work. I can however see that Jesus would pretty much inevitably be killed for political reasons by the Roman occupiers supported by the Jewish authorities of the time for teaching a message of love, peace and humility, and this would likely happen in our own day too as shown by Martin Luther King's assassination. Perhaps I need to just settle on that at least for now!
You show excellent logic and understanding. I also like your summery of the popular atonement theories, but everyone of them have a lot more issues then you stated, making them all unlikely alternatives, so they remain theories with problems.
I really like your question: “Why did Jesus have to go to the cross?”
Generally, except for the Moral Influence Theory, you are going to hear: “God has some kind of “problem” which Jesus resolves for Him. The Moral Influence Theory does not explain the over kill needed for Jesus to go to the cross, either (there has to be much more to it).
Atonement is a huge topic and I could write a book on it since like you I have studied, discussed and read a lot on it (I did not like any of the 12 or so theories I have read). What I have experienced is the fact: “Atonement is much easier experienced than explained”. What did you experience with atonement?
This might help, if prophecy and actuality had Christ, falling off His donkey instantly breaking his neck and dying on the way into Jerusalem, avoiding the cruel torture, humiliation and murder on the cross, what would you miss out on?
Some added issues with the theories you mentioned:
1. They make God out to be blood thirsty?
2. God is seen as being extremely wrathful toward His children?
3. All leave out man’s part in the atonement process, but do try to inject it someway?
4. They show universal atonement, which has to be illogically explained away to be for only those saved?
5. Jesus, Paul, John, Peter and the Hebrew writer explain Jesus going to the cross as literally being a ransom payment, yet the theories do a poor job explaining how these theories are ransom/kidnap scenario (the Ransom Theory of Atonement also does a poor job).
6. A rebellious disobedient child of a wonderful parent not only needs forgiveness, but fair/just Loving discipline conducted if at all possible, with the Parent (this is for best results), yet these theories only show forgiveness and not how atonement is a fair/just loving disciplining of the sinner.
7. It makes God out to be weak needing something like Christ going to the cross to forgive or accept the sinner and/or there is this “cosmic law” God has to obey.
8. They do not fit what went on with minor sins (unintentional sins) being atoned for (Lev.5).
9. They do not explain the contrast between those forgiven before and after the cross Ro. 3:25.
10. They have no reason for why these explanations are left out of the Christ Crucified sermons given in the New Testament.
11. They do not fit, what the new convert can/should experience when coming to the realization they caused Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered (being crucified with Christ).
12. All will give illogical the interpretations of verses and words in scripture, like (My God, My God why have you forsaken me) and the English word “for”.
13. They have or say: God forgives our sins 100% and Christ paid for our sins 100%, but that is contradicting the scriptural understanding of “paying” and “forgiving”, since if it truly “forgiven” there is nothing to be paid. It also cheapens sin.
14. The atonement sacrifice losses its significance by being rolled up with the death burial and resurrection.
15. We have Peter in Acts 2 giving a wonderful “Christ Crucified” sermon, yet there is no mention of Christ being our substitute or the cross “satisfying” God in some way and that is not presented in other sermons in scripture.
The cross is foolishness to the nonbeliever so it is not easy to explain:
To truly understand we need to go through every Old and New Testament verse concerning the atonement process and Christ’s crucifixion. I like to start with Lev. 5, but find great understanding in Ro. 3:25, since there is Godly logic in what happened.
Try just this small part of it:
There is this unbelievable huge “ransom payment” being made: Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews all describe it as an actual ransom scenario and not just “like a ransom scenario”. And we can all agree on: the payment being Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder, the Payer being God/Christ, the child being set free (sinners going to God), but have a problem with: “Who is the kidnapper”? If there is no kidnapper than the ransom scenario does not fit, so who is the kidnapper?
Some people try to make God the receiver of the payment, which calls God the kidnapper of His own children which is crazy.
Some people say satan is the kidnapper, but that would mean God is paying satan when God has the power to safely take anything from satan and it would be wrong for God to pay His satan.
Some say it is an intangible like death, evil, sin, or nothing, but you would not pay a huge payment to an intangible?
There is one very likely kidnapper and that is the person holding a child back from entering the Kingdom to be with God. When we go to the nonbeliever, we are not trying to convince them of an idea, a book, a doctrine or theology, but to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified (which is described as the ransom payment). If the nonbeliever accepts the ransom payment (Jesus Christ) there is a child released to go to the Father, but if the nonbeliever refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified a child is kept out of the Kingdom. Does this all sounds very much like a kidnapping scenario?
There is a lot more to say about this, but this is an introduction.
