5th Sunday of Lent 2008
March 09, 2008
the Rev. Ken Kroohs
(Ezekiel
37:1-14; Psalm 130; Romans 8:6-11; John 11:1-45)
WHY THE CROSS?
St. Christopher’s,
MAY
THE WORDS OF MY MOUTH ... AND THE MEDITATIONS OF ALL OUR HEARTS ... BE ALWAYS
ACCEPTABLE TO YOU --- OUR STRENGTH AND OUR REDEEMER AMEN
We have been discussing how the world is only clear … our lives
can only be seen clearly when we look through the cross. When we look past or around the cross we may
THINK we see clearly but in reality our vision is dark and distorted.
Important and true as all that is, it begs the question of “why?”
… Why the cross? Why did God choose such
an instrument of torture to accomplish the goal.
I thought a lot about whether or not to include this sermon in
the series. I was, and am a bit
concerned that raising these questions could hurt someone’s faith. That someone may be comfortable with their
understanding of the crucifixion and find my discussion and questions a bit
disturbing.
But I finally decided that although I will take care to remind
everyone their beliefs are perfectly good, many other people have never really
thought about the crucifixion. And maybe
an even more important third group are those people who either intellectually
or more sub-consciously believe the entire crucifixion is a bit crazy. That belief then colors, distorts, damages
their entire belief system. … If you are in that third group please know WE are
in good company! I certainly have spent
a lot of time in that group.
Also please know that entire libraries have been written on this
subject! And those libraries are filled
with LONG books with many words longer than my average sentence! Finally know that I have never tried to read
most of those books. I find the
arguments over tiny distinctions unhelpful.
I will not bore you with many citations as we go through this
discussion. Just know little of this is
original to me! In fact, I took a fair
amount of the language from the Wikipedia online encyclopedia since they tend
to use more understandable language.
In essence there are three very broad explanations for why ---
why did Jesus die on the cross. Within
each one you can find hundreds of variations so don’t hear this as anything
more than a quick overview.
Probably if we were asked to complete a survey which included one
word to explain the cross --- salvation would be at the top of the list. That is the most important thing to know,
remember, and believe. For some reason,
a reason we do not fully understand, our salvation was assured through Jesus’
death on the cross. The rest is
interesting gloss but no more.
That said, one of the major theological debates is whether
salvation was primarily from original sin … what Adam and Eve did in the Garden
of Eden when they disobeyed God. Or is
it primarily for our actions.
I suspect most of us have a bit of a problem with the idea that
what was done in the Garden of Eden affects our eternal salvation. That God’s evaluation of us could be
influenced by those actions.
Example — assume someone wins a law suit against
Now, assume Warren Buffet moves into
Understanding our own sins, the things we have done and left
undone, is somewhat easier. But trying
to understand why the cross influences our relationship with God is much more
difficult.
In our survey I suspect another frequent word would be “ransom”.
That we were ransomed from the devil by Jesus’ death. This comes from Mark 10:45 and 1st
Timothy 2:5-6, both of which use the word “ransom”. This also comes from the literal meaning of
“redeeming” – which is to “buy back”.
The “ransom” theory or explanation predominated throughout the
first thousand years of Christianity.
Variations on it are still prevalent in Eastern Christianity. Western Christianity – Roman Catholic and
Protestants, generally have turned away from this understanding,
The concept of course is easy to understand: because of what Adam and Eve did in the
Garden of Eden --- disobeying God --- the devil had control over human beings
and for God to re-take control Jesus had to die. Simple enough.
The problem comes in when we examine the issue a tad closer. For someone to demand a ransom payment from
me they must have some power over me.
Otherwise why would I pay them? We
hear the word “ransom” usually associated with criminal activity. Actually in the scriptural sense it is more
about paying the enemy to return your prisoners of war. But that still requires the enemy to have
power over us. How can Satan have power
over God? Why should God be paying a
ransom to a lesser power?
That is one of the reasons such a large portion of the church has
rejected this explanation. The best
explanation, I think, is that God created the universe with certain rules ---
rules God will not break. One of those
rules was that if human beings disobeyed than Satan would have power until a
totally sinless man was killed.
In fact I have heard it argued that the Old Testaments’ honesty
about the weaknesses of the prophets is a description of God’s attempt to find
a totally sinless --- only human --- man.
Again that makes some sense … until you look a tad closer. This requires God to NOT know the creature
God created. This requires God to not
know that human beings were going to sin.
OR, for God to know humans would fail and be perfectly happy handing
power to Satan. Neither explanation
makes a lot of sense to me.
OK … explanation #2 is frequently called the “satisfaction
theory” Again, hundreds of variations
within the broad category. But in
essence this suggests that a debt was incurred by original sin and only through
Jesus’ death could the debt be repaid.
This one stands up to logic a bit better than the pure “ransom
theory” --- in my opinion that is! In
essence it says that divine judgment requires punishment and Jesus took our
punishment for us.
Within the “satisfaction” view two broad streams of thought are
called the penal satisfaction – laws have been broken and punishment is
required, and honor satisfaction – God has defrauded of his honor and some
correction is required.
The Alpha course includes an interesting image for the penal
satisfaction thinking. The story goes
that a criminal comes before the judge.
The judge finds him guilty and imposes a large fine. Then the judge takes off the robes, steps
down from the bench and pays the fine for the criminal. The judgment has been satisfied.
One variation of this argues that it is not just original sin but
our personal sins that are covered.
Continuing the legal metaphor, the judge leaves an unlimited bank
account at the court and anyone who wants to can pay their fine out of the
judge’s account. … Jesus’ death created
such a reservoir of good will that our sins can be paid for from that account.
The honor satisfaction thinking might be best understood if you
think about a medieval king. Imagine a
peasant from another kingdom insults the king.
Punishing the peasant is not enough – to meet the king’s honor someone
of equal importance must be involved. In
a similar way only Jesus can meet God’s honor.
The third broad explanation is sometimes call the “moral
influence view” This one is simpler to
explain – which is probably why I like it!
In essence it says that the Old Testament showed that God tried talking
to humans, teaching humans, demonstrating power and love to humans and we
failed to understand. So God had to do something
even more dramatic to make the point.
“God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten son”.
This, as I understand it, assumes that somewhere deep down inside
our souls we know we do not deserve God’s love.
So we are likely to doubt God’s love.
Therefore, God went to the most extreme lengths to demonstrate love for
us.
A variation or expansion on the basic moral influence theory goes
on to say that Jesus did this in a way which taught us the moral lessons of
non-violence and loving our enemies.
That Jesus not only demonstrated God’s love for us, but also
demonstrated or modeled how we should love each other.
... Now please do not send this sermon to any of my seminary
professors! They might decide that the
true original sin was giving me a passing grade! My intention was only to provide a broad
overview.
Personally I lean toward the “moral influence” theory with just a
dash of the satisfaction theory included.
I would be happy to discuss that with you. The key point however is that the cross did
make possible my salvation. Without the
cross – whether we are talking about original sin or my own sins --- I have
little hope. The cross leads me to a better
life, and Jesus’ sacrifice helps to cover the debts I incur anyway. But I focus on the moral because it was God’s
love which caused Jesus to pay those debts with his life. That Jesus loves enough to weep at his
friend’s grave.
My suggestion today is when we get to the confession --- we should look at the cross, and then consider
our lives. No matter what explanation
that view, that reminder of what Jesus was willing to do for us, should pull us
up short.
AMEN
We
have previous sermons on our website. To
read an earlier recent sermon just enter: www.st-christopher.org/sermon.html.
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND: I would enjoy reading your comments about this sermon. Please feel free to discuss content or presentation. (If you wish to use another email system send your comments to: ken@st-christopher.com)