My usual Saturday 6 am post is a reflection on some aspect of the gospel reading after a week of posts and commentary on the reading itself. Since tomorrow’s Sunday celebration is the Exaltation of the Cross (instead of the 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time), I thought I might do something a little and explore the question I have been asked over the years by folks: Why did Jesus have to die?

At one time or another I think every believing Christian has asked that question. It is a question that is central to Christian theology and  has been thought about since the earliest days of the Church. It has also been written about by the Church patriarchs who have offered a range of perspectives often overlapping but emphasizing different aspects. 

Several early Church Fathers believed that Jesus’ death was not just a tragic result of opposition to His mission, but a necessary part of God’s saving plan. However, “necessary” meant different things for them: sometimes absolute necessity (no salvation without it), sometimes fittingness (it was the most perfect way), and sometimes divine foreknowledge and plan rather than fate.

The New Testament presents Jesus’ death as part of God’s saving plan on several bases: for the forgiveness of sins, as the fulfillment of Scripture and prophecy, and to perfectly reconcile mercy to humanity with the justice due to God. This can be seen in this sampling of passages;

• “But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)
•  “For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)
• “But he was pierced for our sins, crushed for our iniquity. He bore the punishment that makes us whole, by his wounds we were healed.” (Isaiah 53:5 — cited in several New Testament passages such as 1 Peter 2:24 and Matthew 8:17))
• “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them…” (2 Corinthians 5:19)

The early Christian writers didn’t all explain Christ’s death in exactly the same way. They drew on Scripture, apostolic tradition, and philosophical ideas available to them. Irenaeus of Lyons, in the 2nd century proposed the “recapitulation theory.” The main idea is Christ’s life and death “recapitulated” or “re-summed” all of human history, undoing Adam’s disobedience by His obedience. And so, Jesus had to die because only by entering fully into human life — including death — could He reverse humanity’s fall and lead us back to God. Irenaeus sees this idea expressed Romans 5:18–19 – “…through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all.”

In the 4th century, Athanasius of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa wrote along the lines of Christ as the Victor. The main idea is that humanity was in bondage to sin, death, and the devil. Jesus’ death was a victorious battle where He willingly entered death to destroy it from within. His resurrection is the “triumph” over the powers holding humanity captive. This is seen in their use of Hebrews 2:14–15 –  “…that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil…”

Others offered a theory of ransom. The main idea is that humanity, by sin, came under the power of the devil. Christ’s death was the “ransom” (Mark 10:45) to liberate us. This can be seen in verses such as Colossians 1:13–14 – “He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” The word redemption in Greek is the price paid to free a slave.

Drawing on Old Testament sacrificial imagery, Cyprian and later writers suggested that Jesus’ death is the perfect offering that perfectly satisfies the justice due to God. It appears in early writings but is more fully explored by the medieval church theologians. The idea appears in passages such as Hebrews 9:26 – “…he has appeared at the end of the ages to take away sin by his sacrifice.

Clement of Alexandria and Agustine suggested the needs as a moral example of transforming love. They mused that Jesus’ death reveals the depth of God’s love, moving believers to repentance and transformation. This view doesn’t deny the objective work of atonement, but emphasizes its moral power. In support of this idea they looked to verses such as 1 John 3:16 – “The way we came to know love was that he laid down his life for us; so we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.”

There are early Christian writers who explicitly said God could have saved humanity in another way and therefore Jesus’ death was not absolutely necessary, but was chosen as the most fitting or most effective way. Such writers include Origen of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, and Augustine of Hippo. They took a view of other than “absolute necessity” for a variety of reasons, including:

• Preserving God’s omnipotence: Saying God “had to” would seem to imply a limit on His power.   
• Emphasis on divine freedom: God freely chose this way because it best revealed His attributes.
• Catechetical purpose: some stressed that the Cross teaches believers humility, obedience, and love — something alternative methods wouldn’t have done as vividly.

In a parallel series I am writing about World War II in the Pacific. My research has afforded me the opportunity to read many Medal of Honor citations. Some to living service members; many posthumously. They are acts of bravery; off the scale bravery. They are acts of brotherhood. At the core they are acts of love of one’s friends and comrades. Perhaps it is in that vein that there is one verse to which I look to answer our question: No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends (John 15:13)

---

Image credit: Moses and the Brazen Serpent | Esteban March (1610-1668) | Banco Santander Collection, Madrid |  PD-US