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!
