Why Was Jesus Murdered?

Introduction

Theories about how Jesus’ death dealt with our separation from God have come and gone throughout church history. The favored, traditional Christian doctrine is that Jesus was sacrificed on the cross to “forgive our sins”. This is believed to be crucial since those sins were holding us apart from God’s “justification” and, it is believed, our resultant ticket to God’s heaven when we die.

More cynical observers say that this is simply the “Get out of Hell free” version of Jesus’s death.

Just as there are sound, biblically founded reasons to accept this theory, there are equally valid reasons to reject it. And which theory one adopts is significantly influenced by what one believes the “good news” of Jesus actually was.

We’ll endeavor to examine the arguments for some of these theories and, by acknowledging the veracity of a fairly new interpretation of the Gospel message, argue that a heretofore minor, and to date quite insignificant theory, is unexpectedly the correct interpretation.

Theories of the Atonement

To ground us for considering the subject, it is useful to survey the several historical theories of why Jesus had to die in the way that he did that have been proposed over the centuries.

You can reveal and then review these summaries by clicking on this text.

Penal Substitution Theory

Penal Substitution teaches that Christ bore the penalty for human sin, satisfying divine justice so that sinners may be forgiven. It emphasizes legal categories of guilt, punishment, and acquittal. Major proponents include John Calvin (1509–1564), especially in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. See: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes

Ransom Theory

The Ransom Theory teaches that Christ’s death was a payment offered to liberate humanity from bondage to sin, death, or the devil. It emphasizes Christ’s victory over the powers that enslave humanity. Major proponents include Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254 AD), who articulated this view in works such as On First Principles. See: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12677a.htm

Christus Victor

Christus Victor interprets the crucifixion as Christ’s decisive triumph over the powers of evil, death, and the demonic realm. It stresses liberation rather than legal satisfaction. The theory was revived and systematized by Gustaf Aulén (1879–1977) in his 1931 work Christus Victor. See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atonement/#ChriVict

Moral Influence Theory

This view holds that Christ’s death demonstrates God’s love so profoundly that it transforms the human heart and inspires moral renewal. It focuses on ethical transformation rather than metaphysical transaction. Its major proponent was Peter Abelard (1079–1142), who developed the idea in Sic et Non and related writings. See: https://iep.utm.edu/abelard/

Satisfaction Theory

The Satisfaction Theory argues that human sin dishonored God, and Christ’s death restores divine honor by offering perfect obedience. It frames atonement in terms of feudal justice and honor. The theory was formulated by Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) in his treatise Cur Deus Homo. See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atonement/#AnsSatThe

Governmental Theory

This theory views Christ’s death as a demonstration of God’s moral governance, showing the seriousness of sin while allowing God to forgive without exacting full penalty. It stresses the maintenance of moral order rather than substitution. Its chief proponent was Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), who articulated it in Defensio Fidei Catholicae. See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atonement/#GroGovThe

Recapitulation Theory

Recapitulation teaches that Christ retraced and healed every stage of human existence, undoing Adam’s failure through perfect obedience. The crucifixion is part of this restorative process that renews humanity. Its primary proponent was Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 AD), especially in Against Heresies. See: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm

Scapegoat / Girardian Theory

This theory interprets the crucifixion as the exposure and defeat of the human mechanism of scapegoating and collective violence. Christ’s death unmasks the cycle of violence and reveals God’s nonviolence. Its major proponent is René Girard (1923–2015), particularly in The Scapegoat and Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. See: https://iep.utm.edu/girard/

Participatory / Union-with-Christ Theory

This view emphasizes that believers participate in Christ’s death and resurrection, experiencing liberation and transformation through union with him. The crucifixion is not merely substitutionary but participatory. Major proponents include Eastern Orthodox theologians such as Athanasius (c. 296–373 AD), especially in On the Incarnation. See: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm

We will offer a tenth theory in due course.

Christ Died for Our Sins

By far the most popular theory of Jesus’s death, certainly in the context of modern evangelical Western Christianity, is a combination of two of these theories – the Penal Substitution and the Ransom theories. The underlying assumption of these theories is that we, as sinners/unrighteous, owed a debt to God for our unrighteousness and that, rather than extracting payment for that sin from us (on “the Last Day”), he substituted Jesus to take our place (Substitution) in paying our debt (Ransom) to God. (This idea of sacrificial death atoning for peoples’ iniquities with their god is a thoroughly pagan idea. [0])

Certainly, these theories are supported by significant biblical textual evidence.

Gospel Testimony

The following verses endorse either the idea of Jesus’s death as a substitutionary atonement for our sins, or his suffering/death “paying for” their remission.

Taken at face value, these verses provide a rather overwhelming endorsement of Jesus’s literal “sacrifice”; his giving of his blood to “propitiate” our sins.

Click this text to see a table that maps the terms used to describe Jesus’s death to the verses in which they appear. This presentation may be useful for tracking concepts through the various verses in which they appear.

Source→ Term ↓	Paul	Hebrews	John	Peter	Synoptics
Blood	Rom 3:25; 5:9; Eph 1:7; Col 1:20	Heb 9:12–14; 9:22; 10:19	1Jn 1:7; Rev 1:5; 5:9	1P 1:19	Mt 26:28; Lk 22:20
Redeem / Redemption / Ransom / Bought	Rom 3:24; 1C 6:20; 7:23; Gal 3:13; 4:5; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; 1T 2:6; Tit 2:14	Heb 9:12	Rev 5:9	1P 1:18–19	Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45
Propitiation / Expiation	Rom 3:25	Heb 2:17	1Jn 2:2; 4:10
(Our) Sins	Rom 4:25; 8:3; 1C 15:3; 2C 5:14–15, 21; Gal 1:4	Heb 1:3; 7:27; 9:26–28; 10:12	Jn 1:29; 11:50–52; 1Jn 1:7; 2:2; 4:10; Rev 1:5	1P 2:24; 3:18	Mt 26:28
Forgive / Forgiveness	Eph 1:7; Col 1:14	Heb 9:22			Mt 26:28; Lk 24:47 (forgiveness proclaimed in his name)
Sacrifice / Offering	Rom 3:25; Eph 5:2; 5:25; 1C 5:7	Heb 7:27; 9:26; 10:10–14
For us / for many / for all	Rom 5:6–8; 2C 5:14–15; Gal 1:4; 1T 2:6		Jn 10:11, 15; 11:50–52	1P 3:18	Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45
Cleanse / Purify / Sanctify	Tit 2:14	Heb 9:14; 10:10, 14	1Jn 1:7
Reconciliation / Peace	Rom 5:1, 10; Col 1:20–22
Covenant					Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20

Terms Describing Jesus’s Role

Endorsement By Church Fathers

For an analysis of the attitudes of 1^st through 4^th century church fathers regarding Jesus’s death, click on this text. Hint: They were overwhelmingly of the opinion that Christ’s death was sacrificial, substitutionary, and “atoning”[i]^,[ii].

1. 1st–Early 2nd Century Fathers (Apostolic & Sub Apostolic)

These are the earliest Christian writers after the New Testament (hereinafter, NT), and they already speak of Jesus’s death in sacrificial/atoning terms.

1 Clement (c. 96 AD)

Speaks of Christ’s blood as the means of redemption and atonement.

“Through the blood of the Lord we have been redeemed.”

Uses cultic language: Christ’s blood brings “repentance and hope.”

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD)

Repeatedly calls Jesus’s death a sacrifice.

Christ is “our God, who… for our sakes suffered.”

Speaks of the “blood of God” as salvific.

Frames the cross as substitutionary: Christ died “that we might live.”

Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100–130 AD)

Interprets Jesus as the atoning goat and sin bearer of Leviticus 16.

Christ “gave his flesh for our flesh, and his soul for our souls.”

The Didache (late 1st–early 2nd century)

Eucharistic prayers describe Jesus as the one who brings knowledge, immortality, and forgiveness through his offering.

Not systematic, but sacrificial categories are present.

2. Mid 2nd Century Fathers (Apologists & Early Theologians)

This is when sacrificial atonement becomes explicitly theological.

Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD)

One of the earliest to articulate a penal substitution-like logic.

Christ is the Passover Lamb whose blood saves.

He “suffered for the human race,” fulfilling Isaiah 53.

Christ’s death is a sin offering and ransom.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180 AD)

Strong recapitulation theology, but also atonement through blood.

Christ “gave his life for our life” and “redeemed us by his blood.”

Uses sacrificial categories: Christ is the new oblation offered to God.

Connects cross to propitiation and purification.

Melito of Sardis (c. 170 AD)

On Pascha is one of the earliest full atonement homilies.

Christ is the slaughtered lamb, whose blood brings deliverance.

“He is the one who bore the sins of many.”

Very strong sacrificial imagery.

The Letter to Diognetus (c. 150–200 AD)

One of the clearest early statements of substitutionary atonement.

God “gave his own Son as a ransom for us.”

Christ “took upon himself our sins” and “gave his righteous life for the unrighteous.”

3. 3rd Century Fathers (Systematization & Expansion)

Tertullian (c. 200 AD)

Uses legal and sacrificial categories.

Christ’s death is a satisfaction for sin.

Speaks of Christ’s blood as propitiatory and expiatory.

Explicitly connects the cross to Levitical sacrifices.

Origen (c. 230 AD)

Complex theology, but affirms Christ’s death as a sacrifice for sins.

Christ is the victim offered to God.

Uses ransom language (sometimes controversially).

Strong emphasis on purification through Christ’s blood.

Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 AD)

Christ’s blood cleanses, redeems, and sanctifies.

Eucharistic theology presupposes a sacrificial atonement.

4. 4th Century Fathers (Nicene & Post Nicene)

By this period, sacrificial atonement is standard Christian doctrine.

Athanasius (c. 325 AD)

In On the Incarnation, Christ’s death is a substitutionary sacrifice.

Humanity owed a debt of death; Christ bears it.

Christ’s offering satisfies the divine law and destroys corruption.

Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 380 AD)

Christ offers himself as a sacrifice to heal human nature.

Uses purification and expiation categories.

John Chrysostom (c. 390 AD)

Extensive homilies on Christ’s blood, sacrifice, and sin-bearing.

Christ is the high priest and victim.

Ambrose of Milan (c. 380 AD)

Christ’s blood redeems, purifies, and propitiates.

Strong sacrificial theology.

Augustine (c. 400 AD)

Christ is the sacrificial victim who “bore our punishment.”

Uses propitiation, expiation, ransom, and satisfaction categories.

Sees the cross as both substitutionary and purifying.

5. Summary Table

Century	Father	Atonement Themes
1st–2nd	1 Clement, Ignatius, Barnabas, Didache	Blood, redemption, substitution, sacrificial lamb
2nd	Justin, Irenaeus, Melito, Diognetus	Sacrifice, sin‑offering, ransom, Passover lamb, sin‑bearing
3rd	Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian	Propitiation, satisfaction, purification, ransom
4th	Athanasius, Gregory Naz., Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine	Substitution, sacrifice, purification, satisfaction, priestly offering

These writers explicitly describe Christ’s death as a sacrifice offered to God for the sins of humanity, with purifying, redeeming, remitting, or propitiatory effects.

The Big Questions

There seems, in the sacrificial atonement model of Jesus’s death, to be an insurmountable logical dichotomy. The Tanakh is replete with verses counseling the Israelites to ask God for forgiveness for their moral and ethical sins/transgressions/iniquities, and he will forgive them (Mi 7:18-19, Is 55:7, Ps 32:5, Ps 51:1-2, Hos 14:2-3, 1 Ki 8:30, 33-36).

So, if the sinner petitions God for his forgiveness, and in response God forgives him, then what was Jesus presumed to be doing that was different than this ancient practice[iii]? In other words, if one could just humbly petition God for the forgiveness of his sins and have them forgiven, why did he need Jesus to be crucified to have them forgiven?

Furthermore, if Jesus’s death eradicated everyone’s sin, what did God need with a New Covenant (Dt 30:6, Jer 31:31-34, Ezk 36:24-28, Ezk 37:21-23, Is 11:11-12, Joel 2:28) the entire purpose of which is to change the hearts of his people? By definition, people would already be righteous from whom to build his family. So, if we are to remain committed to the sacrificial atonement model, we have to get serious in analyzing precisely what was meant by “forgiveness”, “reconciliation”, “redemption”, “sanctification”, and the other terms used to characterize the result of Jesus’s death. Either these terms don’t mean what we think they mean, or we have to frame them within a different soteriology.

The Meaning of Atonement

If we’re going to make use of the word rendered “atonement”, we’re going to have to understand what our NT authors had in mind when thinking about the Hebrew term כָּפַר kāp̱ar (and related words stemming from the Hebrew k-p-r root), or the Greek ἱλασμός (hilasmos), both nouns for the idea of atonement, or the verb ἱλάσκομαι (hilaskomai), meaning to propitiate or appease.

Traditionally, when Western Christians hear the term “atonement”, they hear “payment for my sins”, by which they understand pardoning of their sins, linking that result to Jesus’s death. After all, that is the traditional Christian storyline. But what if that is not the meaning of Jesus’s life and subsequent death seen by our NT authors?

In the Tanakh, atonement is the establishment of a relationship between a person and God in which the person is enabled to be in communion with God — in his presence – “At-one-ment”[xi].

This, I would like to suggest, is the meaning of Jesus’s life, message, and death. He came offering those who trusted him a pathway into communion with God. He called that condition “the Kingdom of God”. Jesus’s life, ministry, and death were about ending our spiritual separation from God, not about dispensing tickets to Heaven.

The New Testament has a range of terms it uses to characterize the enablement of this right relationship: reconciliation, redemption, forgiveness, purification, remission, and justification. Each of these adds a perspective on the ultimate result — the establishment of a right relationship with God. But we’ve burdened each of them with our own definitions, each of which is tightly bound up in the underlying (perhaps even subconscious) notion of sacrificial death.

Of course, traditionally, this state of atonement in ancient Israel was thought to be achieved through the blood of animals. But what if that model is an utter corruption of the nature of Jesus and his death? What if, in contrast to that Temple sacrificial model, the atoning agent was Jesus’s life and message — his offer of life in God’s Kingdom that he assured us would be experienced by all who sought it through the agency of God’s Spirit – not his death? In other words, what if Jesus wasn’t here to himself atone for people’s out-of-relationship-with-God state but, rather, to offer us a way to be reconciled to God, thus achieving atonement with him?

Isn’t God’s Kingdom that Jesus focused his entire ministry on explaining and promoting, the place/condition in which its “residents” are atoned and live in communion with their King? And isn’t it the indwelt Spirit of God that sustains that state of atonement within the faithful?

Not the Only Interpretation

As we mentioned earlier, there have been many interpretations of the meaning of Jesus’s death proposed and promoted over the centuries of the church. Of these, the Penal Substitution/Ransom theories are only the most popular.

More recently, a theory, which we’ll call the “New Covenant Ratification” theory, has begun gaining some popular support, though it has not, apparently, yet attracted significant serious scholarly endorsement[iv].

(It’s not our focus in this piece, but for a quick summary of the quite revolutionary Gospel message that we’re tracking with, and its influence on our New Covenant interpretation, you can click on this text to reveal and review it. From: Forgiven vs Transformed to Righteousness)

“A vastly different model of redemption has been revealed in the texts of the NT (mainly Paul) by Dr. Jason Staples in his books and recent videos.

Staples’s revelation is based on a few key points:

The desire of the potential convert to change (repent from, redeem) his life from its former separation from God to a life of dedicated ‘fidelity’ (Staples’s word, used to replace our neutered “faith”) to Christ is sincere; heartfelt. It is not simply an affirmation that Jesus was who he said he was. This is the heart of the matter.
The popular Western (protestant) model of conversion that we looked at briefly results in the majority of its cases being unchanged people – people who continue to live apart from God (but who nevertheless think they have been “forgiven” [read “excused”] for doing so.) Crucially, this doesn’t solve God’s problem of his created humanity living apart from him – out of communion with him. His purpose in creation was to be glorified by his human family (Is 43:7). He can’t do so if that ‘family’ remains separated from him in their unrighteousness and unrepentance about it.
The entire purpose of God’s New Covenant (Dt 30:6, Jer 31:31-34, Ezk 36:24-28, Ezk 37:21-23, Is 11:11-12, Joel 2:28) is the changing of the hearts of his people so that they will love him, be naturally obedient to his will, and know him.
Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection were not only a fulfillment of the law (in that his life was sinless according to that law, and so also a fulfillment of Israel’s purpose as God’s people), but also the event triggering the inauguration of God’s New Covenant, which occurred 50 days after his resurrection.
In sending Jesus and initiating his New Covenant God was being faithful not only to his promises to the kingdoms of Judah and Israel to restore and reunify them (Eze 37: 1-17), but also to Abraham that through his progeny “shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Ge 22:18). The problem this created for many Jews is that it necessarily (due to the dispersion of the tribes of Israel into Gentile nations) included Gentiles, creating a stumbling block for many even of the early church. (We can see even the disciples wrestling with this revelation in Acts 11. They didn’t understand it, but they knew it was true.)
The motive force behind this change of God’s people, their transformation, was (and is) the indwelling within them of God’s Spirit. He is the heart changer (Eze 36:36-27). He brings the knowledge of God (1 Co 2:10-12). And he brings the love of God (Gal 5:22-23). The Spirit is granted to the supplicant after he has sincerely repented (point 1) and entrusted himself to God.
The one transformed by the Spirit possesses the ability to live his life in accordance with God’s will – “to live your life as Christ would live your life if he were you”[v]. Though he can on occasion thwart the leading of the Spirit, he nevertheless is normally led to desire to and act in accord with the Spirit (Ro 8:13). This results in the Christ-follower living a life that is viewed by God as righteous. This is God’s overarching will for us – to live for and with him in righteousness. In fact, this is what the entire Bible is about.
Everyone will be judged on the last day – sheep and goats, pastors and child traffickers, and everyone in between. The one who has been equipped to desire and lead a righteous life, and who has not rejected that Spirit, will be found righteous on that day. Those who have not been led by the Spirit in their life will be found unrighteous (Mt 25:31-33).
Significantly, this view of salvation is all forward-looking. It promises a new life being lived out in obedience to God, and so being deemed “righteous”. The indwelt Spirit will resist any temptation to live outside God’s will, making it possible to live faithfully.”

In summary, all are going to be judged on the last day for “what they have done” (Ps 62:12, Pr 24:12, 2 Cor 5:10). The righteous will be judged in the “right”. To live righteously, people have to be transformed from their natural humanity into children of God, indwelt by his Spirit. Those indwelt by his Spirit reject – “put away”/”cause to stand away” sin. It is the power of this indwelt Spirit that enables a person to resist – put off/away sin, thus causing it to be “forgiven”. This “forgiveness” (ἀˊφεσις áphesis) is what Jesus announced was the purpose of his “blood of the covenant”. It is this New Covenant gift of God’s Spirit that Jesus’s life and death enabled.

This New Covenant theory responds to several traits of traditional Jewish belief and culture:

As was noted, Israelites historically had the option of directly seeking God’s forgiveness for their sins against his moral and ethical laws. The priestly Temple Cult seems to have quantified and systematized a procedure for the supplicant to additionally restore his ritual purity in response to lesser/”unknown” offenses. But forgiveness was from God.
Traditionally, Israelites employed the legal framework of covenant to document agreements. One covenant covered one subject (e.g., land tenancy) between two parties. There weren’t multiple contracts dealing with the same subject between the same parties. Just one.

When one covenant had been fulfilled (i.e., the legal obligations of both parties defined by the covenant had been fulfilled), another covenant could be agreed covering the same subject for the same parties.

When a new covenant with God was agreed to, blood was sprinkled on the parties[vi] to signify both their ratification of the agreement and their ability to enter into it. Such was the case with Moses’s covenant Ex 24:7-8:

⁷Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” ⁸ And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

The significance of the blood sprinkled on the people was as an atonement for their unrighteousness, thus ritually cleansing them so that they were ritually purified and thus enabled to enter into the Covenant with God.

The Significance of Blood

Before continuing, we need to point out that in the Tanakh, blood was the symbol, or thought of as the carrier, of life itself. This is made clear in, among other verses, Lev 17:14 and Lev 17:11:

¹¹ For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

No doubt in keeping with this model, Jesus, at the Last Supper gathering, announces Lk 22:20

²⁰And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

It’s impossible to know exactly what Jesus’s metaphorical language was intended to convey, but taking it at face value, there is a reference to his blood as if it had been used to author a New Covenant: “in” or “through the use of” my blood. One image this conveys is of the ratification of this New Covenant being signified by Jesus’s blood (whether as a symbol of his life, or of his death [i.e., “poured out”]). His blood, even symbolically, doesn’t get “sprinkled” onto those who will be parties to this New Covenant. But its significance in at least symbolically referencing it and designating its effectivity in ratifying the covenant seems fairly obviously bound up in Jesus’s human life (i.e., “blood”).

Ongoing Forgiveness of Sin

Jesus’s crucifixion did not end the practice of forgiving sin. For example, we have Jesus instructing his disciples Lk 24:47 and Jn 20:23:

⁴⁷…and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (future)

²³ If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” (future)

This, indeed, creates a very strange juxtaposition of events. In both verses, the speaker is the risen Christ. So, according to the Penal Substitution/Ransom theories of his death, all of our sins have been forgiven and their debt remitted (past tense) by his sacrificial death. Yet here he instructs his disciples to preach repentance for the forgiveness of sins… in the future. It would seem that one who repents is at the very least involved in atoning his own relationship with God. And, he says that the disciples have the power to forgive and withhold forgiveness of sin!

Neither statement makes any sense if Jesus’s death “paid for” the remission of everyone’s (or at least believers’) sin. Therefore, it’s quite apparent that if we assume Jesus’s death as a kind of “get out of Hell free” card, we have missed something quite fundamental, and quite important.

The Testimony of Luke-Acts

For centuries, scholars and theologians have noticed the author of Luke-Acts’s reticence to sign on to the sacrificial atonement theory of Christ’s death[vii]. In brief, the author of Luke-Acts doesn’t posit an answer to what Jesus’s death accomplished, but rather why it had to happen as it did, and the position that it was Jesus’s resurrection as Christ that marked humanity’s salvation[viii]. He sees Jesus faithfully acting out God’s plan, of which he was fully aware, in the position of an appointed prophet sent by God, even alluding to images of Isaiah’s Servant in the 4^th Servant Song (Is 52:12-53:16, e.g., Lk 22:37, 24:25-27, 24:46).

Based only on Lk 22:20, above, our author also had in view a blood-enacted atonement (like at Sinai) preparatory to the institution of a New Covenant, so equipping its recipients to participate in it[ix].

But the author’s larger context here is the fact that Jesus, his perfect life notwithstanding, was sent by God into the midst of unrighteous humanity to proclaim and demonstrate God’s will. And based on the long tradition of God’s prophets/messengers being reviled, attacked, and (at least according to tradition) killed by that worldly humanity, our author places Jesus squarely within this rejected, martyred group. In that company, the world was destined to reject, attack, and condemn him, even to death[x]. So thought the author of Luke-Acts in reflecting on Jesus’s death.

What New Covenant?

If Jesus were here to ratify God’s New Covenant, what is/was it? And what did it replace?

The Old

The operative covenant between God and Israel in Jesus’s day was the Mosaic Covenant, the moral and ethical instructions to Israel via Moses at Sinai/Moab for how they were to live with one another in the land God was giving to them. This was the “old”, defining how they were to live in accordance with God’s will, that was to be replaced by the “new”.

Many Jews insisted, and continue to insist, that their Mosaic Covenant was not replaced. Rather, they claim it was “renewed”. But that’s not what the text says. Je 31:31-32:

31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.

We need also to be clear that it was the earlier covenant that was replaced, not God’s law. The two are not the same.

The New – Transformation of the Faithful

The New Covenant is announced by most of the major prophets (Dt 30:6, Jer 31:31-34, Eze 36:24-28, Eze 37:21-23, Is 11:11-12, Joel 2:28 ). It is God’s unilateral promise to transform Israel and Judah to love him with hearts (of flesh in place of stone) on which is written God’s law, and implant in them his Spirit. This is both a regathering (to God) promise, and a promise of spiritual transformation to enable one to live righteously. The regathering aspect of the promise becomes crucially important, particularly in light of the fact that the northern tribes (Israel) had literally disappeared centuries earlier.

What is so profoundly different from the Mosaic Covenant is the agency that was now promised to lead Israel to righteous living. In the old covenant, that agency was the people themselves. In the new, it is the Spirit of God animating, leading, and empowering the people. And it was extended to all who, as in the past, in seeking God’s forgiveness, repented of their lives apart from God and sought life with him. Simple repentance.

Though part of Jesus’s mission was to announce and describe this New Covenant as the foundation of the Kingdom of God, this was not Jesus’s covenant. This was very much the final phase of God’s plan for his people that we see being played out throughout the Tanakh.

In addition to describing life within this New Covenant, what was Jesus’s role?

Some scholars and theologians theorize that the life Jesus lived served as the act that ratified God’s New Covenant with his people (a form of the Moral Influence Theory). Had Jesus not lived, the implementation of the New Covenant would have been without precedent or foundation. His life served as the exemplar of the lives the New Covenant would bring to those who followed him into God’s Kingdom. In this sense, he was the metaphorical “door” through which people gained access to that Kingdom. (“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father but by me.” Jn 14:6)

Christ demonstrated the life God was calling his people to, and in this way served as both the validation and the ratifier of God’s New Covenant promise.

Contrasting Metaphors

It is interesting that as we survey the various Gospel and epistle characterizations of the result of Jesus’s death, we can’t avoid noticing the tension that exists between the sacrificial atonement-based statements and the New Covenant ratification statements.

Sacrificial Atonement

What is confounding about the former is that, as we saw, Temple sacrifices had nothing to do with intentional sin forgiveness ^[iii]. The forgiveness of acknowledged sin was always the merciful response of God to a sincere petition by the sinner.

The overwhelming number of metaphors in our table of verse terms seems to be that Christ’s sacrifice/death/blood:

Justified us (i.e., resulted in God declaring us in the “right”, and so appointing us as his adopted children)
Redeemed us (to God, i.e., traditionally meaning paid a debt we owed)
Sanctified us (i.e., made us holy – set apart for God)
Forgave/put away/propitiated/remitted our sins
Reconciled[xii] us to God

Each of these perspectives on the effect of Jesus’s life and death implies a change in the penitent believer’s status as seen by God. The most controversial for our current purposes is the concept of “forgiveness” that, despite the common misunderstanding of Temple sacrifices, seems to inexorably pull Jesus into the role of sacrificial offering, and God into the role of his sentencing judge.

Forgiven

In an earlier piece, I unpacked this term and so will simply quote here what was said there.

“Jesus himself proclaims that the purpose of his death is the ‘forgiveness of sins’: Mt 26:28

²⁸for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

This may be the most widely misunderstood Greek term in the New Testament, IMHO. Its Bible dictionary meaning is “to cause to stand away, to release one’s sins from the sinner. Forgiveness, remission.” The NT authors, and Jesus himself, repeatedly use this term to characterize an effect of Christ’s death. (Luke, in Acts 5:31, however, sees forgiveness [our sin being put away from us] as the result of Christ’s glorification, not simply his death.)”

Questions that Demand Thoughtful Answers

“But what did Jesus have in mind in making this statement? The traditional understanding is that by his sacrificial death, he pardoned us of our sins. But the question that interpretation raises is this: If you’re God, and to you everybody who trusted Christ is now, effectively, “sin-less”, why do you still need a New Covenant? Why, in fact, was it necessary for God to pour out his Spirit on those in Jerusalem on Pentecost if in looking at them he saw righteous sinlessness — people who believed in his crucified Son? Perhaps more revealing, if many of those now considered sinless due to Christ’s sacrifice still live unrighteously (i.e., knowingly committing sins), what good is that to God in seeking a righteous family?

It seems those forming the traditional view of Jesus’ death may not have paid adequate attention to God’s overarching goal. Of course, God did launch his New Covenant (on Pentecost). It appears that he wasn’t so much interested in pardoning sins (though that may be part of it) as he was in gifting his Spirit to prevent sins in his faithful, so enabling them to live righteously. It is not unreasonable to conclude that in saying he was to “forgive” sins, what Jesus was saying was that after his death, he would send God’s Spirit into those who trusted him (Jn 16:7) so that they would be defended against sin, thus causing their potential sins to “stand away” from them.

Cleansing/Sanctification

What Temple sacrifices did was maintain a level of ritual purity in the people and God’s place of habitation among them. So, did our sacrificial atonement authors see Jesus’s blood (i.e., death) as a metaphorical cleansing of the people within whom God’s Spirit would dwell?

As indicated in our first table, we find allusions to the cleansing/purification/sanctification metaphor of Jesus’s death in five verses: Tit 2:14, Heb 9:14, 10:10, 14, 1 Jn 1:7 – hardly a majority view.

Covenant Ratification

The traditional understanding of Jesus’s life and death as a sacrifice is what we’re disputing with our suggestion that he was here to ratify, and thus inaugurate, God’s New Covenant (Mt 26:28, Lk 22:20, Mk 14:24). However, in terms of verse-count, this position suffers from the same paucity as the Sanctification model. Surprisingly, the Apostle Paul, himself the most thoughtful and vocal NT writer of the outpouring of the New Covenant’s Spirit, seems to miss the point almost completely in his letters. He mentions the phrase just two times, 2 Cor 3:6 and 1 Cor 11:25, the second of which is in Jesus’s voice.

While he only voices the phrase “New Covenant” once, it may well be that he is simply referencing it implicitly when, as he does continually, he mentions the ministry of the power of God’s indwelt Spirit within his churches.

So, while Paul doesn’t make the literal connection between Jesus’s life and death and the advent of the New Covenant, his entire ministry is marked by preaching that covenant’s effect within his followers of Jesus.

Summary

God didn’t murder his son as a “sacrifice”. He sent his son to announce to the Jews and the world his plan to implement his Kingdom on earth through the implementation of his New Covenant. Jesus died not only because of his “Kingdom of God” message but also because of his perceived authority and power. He was an existential threat to the religious elites and their system.

The sacrificial atonement model has been interpreted to mean that those who believe Jesus was God’s “Son” and that he was resurrected from the dead are exonerated from all sin.
- This conclusion makes subsequent, post-resurrection statements concerning forgiveness by Jesus unintelligible.
- People who “believe” Jesus is the Son of God are tragically misled into believing that they are “saved” from God’s judgment when they are not. (See the hidden “Gospel” section above.)
The sacrificial atonement model hides the monumental covenant change that allows people to finally live in fidelity to God’s will.
That model also encourages one to look at Christ’s death in terms of “what it does for me” instead of its achievement of God’s long-standing goals for his human family.
Ultimately, if people believe they are exonerated from responsibility for their lives, they will be uninterested in repenting of those lives apart from God, and instead to devote their lives to God. This is the condition of vast numbers of modern, mostly evangelical, “Christians” today.
Sacrificial atonement confuses salvation as “going to heaven when I die” with its true meaning of “living my life as Christ would live my life if he were me”, enabled by God’s Spirit.

Conclusion

For a host of reasons, God wanted Jesus to demonstrate to the world the reality of being empowered by his Spirit (which, following John’s baptism at the Jordan, he was); to invite all those who wanted a life similar to the one Jesus demonstrated, to join with him in his “Kingdom” (“the firstborn of many brothers” Rom 8:29); and to empower them to live that life through the indwelling of his Holy Spirit, and so be found in the right – “righteous” – on the Last Day.

This is the New Covenant that Jesus says in his own words was the “cup that is poured out for you” in his blood. Other effects notwithstanding (e.g., redemption, forgiveness, atonement, reconciliation, etc.), clearly Jesus was here to launch this Covenant.

No longer would people struggle futilely on their own to live up to God’s standards. God was seeing to it that they would be empowered by his Spirit to live righteously.

In announcing the inauguration of his New Covenant, God needed to provide his unprecedented demonstration of what living that life looked like in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, having Jesus teach on the nature of that life in God’s Kingdom, having the “world” (in the form of the Jewish elites) reject that life and so, as they had throughout history (Neh 9:26), attack both God’s instructions and his emissary.

The New Covenant was God’s solution to his long-standing desire (Jer 24:7) to build a family of faithful children to share in his life with him forever. God’s plan is a cautionary tale for those claiming that their “reward” is in heaven when their lives have not demonstrated even the slightest evidence of their love of him or their faithfulness to his will.

[0] Archaeology shows that animal sacrifice predates writing: Göbekli Tepe (c. 9500 BCE): ritual slaughter of bulls, gazelles, boars; Çatalhöyük (c. 7000 BCE): bull horns decorating homes and blood rituals; Ubaid and Uruk cultures (5000–3000 BCE): animal offerings in temples.

[i] Vlach, Michael J., Penal Substitution in Church History, TMSJ 20/2 (Fall 2009) p199-214

[ii] The Substitutionary Atonement: An In-depth Explanation of the Substitutionary and Other Aspects of the Atonement, Appendix D: The Church Fathers on Substitutionary and Penal Atonement – Quick Reference,

[iii] How are sins forgiven without blood sacrifice? The sins for which forgiveness was petitioned from God via request/prayer were not those typically handled by Temple “sin” offerings (ḥaṭṭā’ṯ). One sought forgiveness directly from God for purposeful violations of his moral/ethical instructions (e.g., the Decalogue) which the Temple system did not address. If one was not repentant for such sin, he was either banished from Israel or stoned to death.

[iv] Except, possibly, Dr. Jason A. Staples and the New Covenant Gospel he proposes in his “Paul and the Resurrection of Israel”

[v] Willard, Dallas, “The Divine Conspiracy”, San Francisco: Harper, 1998

[vi] The ancient covenant ratification ceremony involved animals being cut in halves and the parties to the agreement walking between the pieces symbolizing their fate if they were to abrogate the agreement, and the sealing of their agreement. See Gen 15:9-10, 17-18, Jer 34:18-20.

[vii] Kimbell, John, Jesus’ Death in Luke-Acts: The New Covenant Sacrifice, SBJT-16-3, pp 28-48,

[viii] In this view he seems to be in agreement with Paul who famously preached that Christ freed us from the “law of sin and death” – salvation.

[ix] Robinson, Adam, Jesus’ Death: Ratification of the New Covenant (Luke 22:20),

[x] Van Zyl, Hermie C, The soteriological meaning of Jesus’ death in Luke-Acts. A survey of possibilities, ISSN 1609-9982 = VERBUM ET ECCLESIA JRG 23(2) 2002

[xi] The idea of the term atonement signifying “being at one with” traces back to William Tyndale and his English Bible translation (1526). This idea is radically different than the “having my sins paid for” of today.

[xii] Concerning “reconciled”, the biblical term καταλλαγή katallagḗ refers to the one in a relationship who caused that relationship to be broken, to reform himself, so removing the cause of the broken relationship. We’re the ones who broke our relationship that God desired. So, it is on us to repair it, for which we are, of course, incapable. Because of the perfection of Jesus’s relationship with the Father, it seems reasonable that he would be empowered to repair our failed relationships, overcoming our inability.