• Why did Jesus have to die?
Copyright © JULIAN KASTRATI, 2004(PLEASE NOTE: footnotes are acknowledged but withheld for copyright reasons)
It has been over two years now since Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ brought back to audiences of millions a key question—one of those that even made it to the cover of Time Magazine: ‘Why did Jesus have to die?’[1]
It is a known fact that during the past two thousand years, the Christian church has more or less arrived at firm definitions over who Jesus was. However, there has never been a cohesive understanding over why Jesus had to die. In this context, it is perfectly legitimate to ask, what was it that Jesus did for humanity on the cross? Was the cruel ordeal that he went through really necessary? If it was, what was the reason behind this extraordinary and sublime act?
The majority of Christian scholars and theologians agree that Christ’s death was utterly decisive for humanity. However, different views have been suggested over the centuries as to the meaning of Jesus’ atoning death. These views are commonly known in Christian Theology as the theories of atonement.[2]
If there is a theory of atonement that is unique in its approach, it is the moral-influence theory, because, unlike other theories, it views Christ’s sacrifice in purely subjective terms. The moral influence theory is otherwise known as the subjective view (of atonement). Although it dates all we way back to the 11th century,the subjective view has been receiving renewed attention in the recent years, especially among liberal theological circles. This is for the simple reason that the said view does not necessitate a particular function to Christ’s death.
For these reasons, this article will focus on the subjective view of atonement as represented by the moral-influence theory. Its objective is to provide a biblical evaluation of this theory as well as highlight relevant theological implications. In this context, the main question to be discussed is: How tenable is the moral-influence theory in terms of the New Testament writings on the atoning death of Christ and what are the major theological implications?
The Subjective View: Abelardian Beginnings
A younger contemporary of Anselm, French philosopher and theologian Peter Abelard (1079– 1142) agreed with him in disclaiming the notion that Christ’s death was a ransom paid to the devil. But this is as far as they agreed. Although both distanced themselves from the ransom theory, it was for very different reasons. Abelard made it clear from the very beginning that Anselm’s satisfaction theory ‘dissatisfied’ him. He strongly disagreed with Anselm by arguing that Christ did not make some sort of sacrificial payment to the Father to satisfy his offended dignity. This very idea for him is appalling: ‘It is cruel and wicked that anyone should demand the blood of an innocent person as the price for anything, or that it should in any way please him that an innocent man should be slain.’[3]
Instead, Abelard emphasised Christ’s death as a perfect example of God’s love for humans. The death of Jesus is simply a way in which God shows how much He loves humans by identifying with their suffering, even to the point of death. Jesus took our nature, and in it, He took upon himself to teach us by both word and example even to the point of death. In this way, He binds us to himself through love.[4] As a closer look is taken into the theory, the reader is confronted with a clear interpretation of the efficacy of Christ’s death in subjective terms. Abelard claimed that the death of Christ has no significant effect outside the person who responds to it. The voluntary self-sacrifice of the Son of God intends to invoke in us a grateful love in response, so that in loving him we are forgiven.[5] Moreover, it is the display of the divine love at the cross that delivers us from fear and prompts our answering love. By responding to love with love, we no longer live in sin.[6] ‘Redemption is that greatest love kindled in us by Christ’s passion, a love which not only delivers us from the bondage of sin, but also acquires for us the true freedom of children, where love instead of fear becomes the ruling affection.’[7]
However, Abelard’s main challenge to Anselm revolved around the issue of forgiveness. God must be free to forgive if he wishes to forgive. If Jesus was able to pronounce forgiveness of people’s sins before he went to the cross, then it should be equally possible that God forgives others, if he so chooses.[8] Love is not the result for the forgiveness of sin but rather, its ground, he argued. To support his thesis, Abelard quotes the words of Jesus recorded in Lk. 7.47: ‘her sins are forgiven because she loved much’ (referring to the ‘sinner’ woman who wiped His feet with her hair at the Pharisee’s dining table).[9] Since the cross evokes our love for Christ, it is when we love him that we are actually forgiven, concluded Abelard. This consequently reduces justification to the manifestation of God’s love to us in Christ.[10]
The Subjective View: Modern Developments
Abelard may be rightly considered as the principal medieval exponent of what was to be later called ‘the moral-influence theory’.[11] However, it would be a mistake to identify the theory exclusively with Abelard’s views. Following a period of silence, the subjective view was revived again with the advent of liberal theology (19th century). The key proponents of the theory during this period were Horace Bushnell in the United States and Hastings Rashdall in England.[12]
Bushnell, Rashdall and other advocates of the moral-influence theory not only embraced Abelard’s views but developed them even further. In their writings, they stress that God’s nature is essentially love. Love is so emphasised that other divine qualities, such as justice and holiness, are minimised and overshadowed. Humans do not have to fear God’s wrath and justice. The problem with humanity is not necessarily that it has violated God’s law and consequently receives divine punishment. Rather, it lies in the human attitudes that keep them apart from God. [13] God is—and has always been—a loving and forgiving God. Therefore, there is no need to propitiate God or appease his anger or offer him some satisfaction. The problem lies within humans. They are self-centred, rebellious, turned in upon themselves, and closed to God.[14]
In this context, the death of Christ is interpreted as an example that brings home to us God’s love for humans. ‘The power of example in Christ’s cross makes us willing to accept the forgiveness which God has always wanted to give us.’[15] Moreover, Bushnell claims that the object of Jesus’ coming was not too ‘square up the account of our sin’[16] or to ‘satisfy the divine justice for us.’[17] Instead, the object of the birth, life and death of Jesus is found in his own words: ‘For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost’ (Lk. 19.10); ‘In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth’ (Jn 18.37). On the other hand, Paul wrote that ‘God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ’ (2 Cor. 5.19). The real work that Jesus came to do was healing souls. ‘[We] conceive a transaction moving on character in souls; a regenerative, saving, truth-subjecting, all-restoring, inward change of the life – in one word the establishment of the kingdom of God.’[18]
Rashdall, on the other hand, claimed that the only condition of salvation is repentance: ‘The truly penitent man who confesses his sins to God receives instant forgiveness. God is a loving Father who will pardon sin upon the sole condition of true repentance.’[19] It is our repentance and conversion produced within us, as we contemplate the cross, which enable God to forgive us. ‘The significance of the cross is not that it expressed God’s love in dealing with our sins, but that it has evoked our love and so made any divine dealing with sins unnecessary. Good works of love, instead of being the evidence of salvation, become the ground on which it is bestowed.’[20]
Summary
From its Abelardian beginnings to its modern developments, the moral-influence theory could be summarisedas follows: Jesus’ life and death must not be seen as a payment, or a victory over the devil, or a satisfaction of a debt owed to God, but rather as a demonstration of God’s love that moves sinners to repent and love God.
The Subjective View: A Biblical Evaluation
The tenability of the moral-influence theory depends on the outcome of a close biblical (New Testament) evaluation. This evaluation must be fair for the simple reason that a very brief analysis of biblical references to atonement indicates the coexistence of a variety of atonement themes. All of them contribute towards a better understanding of atonement. The evoking love of God—highly promoted by the subjective view—is certainly one of these themes, and does receive considerable New Testament support.
Thus, in the Book of Romans, Paul declares: ‘God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us’ (Rom. 5.8). Elsewhere in Romans, Paul refers to God as ‘He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all’ (Rom. 8.32). In the following verses he illustrates the concrete way in which this demonstration of love subjectively empowers God’s people to face all sorts of adversity.[21] John, on the other hand, points out that ‘Jesus Christ laid down his life for us’ (1 Jn 3.16) denoting what real love is all about. John then refers explicitly to the ‘moral influence’ of Christ’s death on our actions (v. 17).
On the other hand, supporters of the subjective view tend to reject the numerous scriptural references that are incompatible with the subjective view. Significantly, while commenting on Jesus’ ransom-saying (in Mk 10.45), Rashdall labels the saying as a ‘doctrinally coloured insertion’[22] while Jesus’ eucharistic words about the blood of the new covenant and the forgiveness of sins as secondary.[23] Rashdall thus falls into the trap of circular reasoning, assuming what he wishes to prove. Because he is so convinced Christ never taught that his death was necessary for the forgiveness of sins, Rashdall appears to disallow inspiration to stand in his way.[24]
There are other reasons that seriously question the claim that the subjective view has all the answers for Christ’s atonement. Most significantly, the moral-influence theory does not seem to really recognise (the biblical concept of) the radicality and seriousness of sin. Instead, it entirely lacks a profound biblical understanding of man’s radical rebellion against God, of God’s wrath as his outraged antagonism to human sin, and of the indispensable necessity of a satisfaction for sin which satisfies God’s own character of justice and love.[25] If anything, the NT is crystal clear that sin has made man an enemy of God and subject to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 3:11-18; 8:7; Eph. 2:1-3). Beyond what is suggested by the subjective view, the Scriptures view Christ’s death with certainty as necessary for our forgiveness and salvation. His atonement is primarily seen as substitutional, that is, Christ died in our place (Isa. 53; Rom. 8.32; Eph. 5.2; Gal. 3.13; 1 Thess. 5:10). However, penal substitution, as in the case of the moral influence theory, does not offer the full picture either .
In addition, the subjective view seems to be flawed in its own central emphasis. The focus is on the love of Christ, which both shines from the cross and elicits our responsive love.[26] Indeed, everyone would agree that Christ gave himself for us because He loved us (Gal. 2.20; Eph. 5.2, 25; 1 Jn 3.16) and that His love awakens our love (1 Jn 4.19). However, a question remains and requires a well-grounded answer: how does the cross demonstrate Christ’s love?
Significantly, the NT does not primarily portray the death of Christ as a demonstration of love in itself, but only in that Christ gave his life to rescue others. Christ’s death must have had an objective before it could have had an appeal. Moreover, if Jesus’ death was exemplary and not functional, one could argue that such a display of love would be unnecessary, if not illogical. John Stott concludes that ‘[t]he subjective view, in its strictest logic, does not really quite answer the question of why Jesus had to die...Paul and John saw love in the cross because they understood it respectively as a death for sinners (Rom. 5.8) and as a ‘propitiation’ for sins (1 Jn 4.10).’[28] The immediate implication here is that the cross may be seen as a proof of God’s love only when at the same time it is seen as a proof of God's justice. Thus, God’s love and God's justice must be seen as simultaneously revealed. After all, we can speak of God's love only in connection with the reality of the cross. As Paul declares: ‘Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again’ (2 Cor. 5.14-15).
Summary
A careful biblical evaluation of the subjective view finds it untenable as a stand-alone, all-comprehensive theory. The Scriptures clearly affirm that the cross displayed powerfully the love that God had for mankind. However, Christ’s death was not a mere martyrdom act. Numerous biblical references would affirm the objectivity and functionality of Christ’s atonement. Christ did die our death and he did become ‘a ransom for many.’ In other words, the scriptural record encompasses a much wider view of atonement than allowed/covered by the moral-influence theory .
The Subjective View: Theological Implications
At this point, it is appropriate to consider the theological implications that derive from the biblical analysis. The question would be: What is really implied if the subjective view was the only tenable theory of atonement? What remains to be said if the moral-iinfluence theory was the only one that provided the explanation as to why Jesus had to die?
1. Christ died on the cross as a mere example, so that humans may emulate His love. The implication would be that the entire biblical idea of an objective, functional death of Christ, badly needed to solve the sin problem, is to be nullified.
2. Our sins are forgiven by means of our response to God’s love. The implication would be that the biblical view that Christ’s death enables our forgiveness and justification is to be ignored.
3. Christ’s death is seen primarily as a demonstration of God’s love. The implication would be that the biblical view that Christ died for us and instead of us is to be abandoned.
4. God’s nature must be seen as essentially love. The implication would be that the biblical concepts of God’s justice, holiness and wrath are to be considered outdated.
Lastly, in order for the subjective view to appear somewhat tenable, then every biblical text incompatible with this view must be rejected. Consequently, the divine inspiration of Jesus’ ransom-sayings, his substitutionary remarks and his eucharistic pronouncements is to be denied, avoided or in the best case, kindly ignored.
Conclusion
No single theory of atonement provides a comprehensive and conclusive answer to the doctrine of atonement. Instead, each of these theories, including the subjective view, highlights various aspects of the doctrine of atonement, thus comprising a full-colour bouquet. The moment when these theories claim exclusivity is the moment when they fail in their tenability while examined in the larger biblical context.
A biblical evaluation of the moral-influence theory (the subjective view) and a reflection on its major implications prompt to the conclusion that this theory cannot claim exclusivity as the theory of atonement. Clearly, Christ’s atoning sacrifice was not a mere subjective, emotional event with no real objective or point. The tenability of the subjective-only view must be seriously questioned, in terms of NT writings bearing on Christ’s atoning death. On the other hand, the subjective view must be commended for its attempt to bring in the ethical and moral concerns, which are otherwise neglected by the other theories ofatonement. The love of God displayed on the cross is indeed touching and highly motivational. It evokes a powerful reaction in all those who respond to it. Yet, as one looks at Christ’s cross, one is also reminded of the fact that God’s love and God's justice must go hand in hand.[29]
It is a known fact that during the past two thousand years, the Christian church has more or less arrived at firm definitions over who Jesus was. However, there has never been a cohesive understanding over why Jesus had to die. In this context, it is perfectly legitimate to ask, what was it that Jesus did for humanity on the cross? Was the cruel ordeal that he went through really necessary? If it was, what was the reason behind this extraordinary and sublime act?
The majority of Christian scholars and theologians agree that Christ’s death was utterly decisive for humanity. However, different views have been suggested over the centuries as to the meaning of Jesus’ atoning death. These views are commonly known in Christian Theology as the theories of atonement.[2]
If there is a theory of atonement that is unique in its approach, it is the moral-influence theory, because, unlike other theories, it views Christ’s sacrifice in purely subjective terms. The moral influence theory is otherwise known as the subjective view (of atonement). Although it dates all we way back to the 11th century,the subjective view has been receiving renewed attention in the recent years, especially among liberal theological circles. This is for the simple reason that the said view does not necessitate a particular function to Christ’s death.
For these reasons, this article will focus on the subjective view of atonement as represented by the moral-influence theory. Its objective is to provide a biblical evaluation of this theory as well as highlight relevant theological implications. In this context, the main question to be discussed is: How tenable is the moral-influence theory in terms of the New Testament writings on the atoning death of Christ and what are the major theological implications?
The Subjective View: Abelardian Beginnings
A younger contemporary of Anselm, French philosopher and theologian Peter Abelard (1079– 1142) agreed with him in disclaiming the notion that Christ’s death was a ransom paid to the devil. But this is as far as they agreed. Although both distanced themselves from the ransom theory, it was for very different reasons. Abelard made it clear from the very beginning that Anselm’s satisfaction theory ‘dissatisfied’ him. He strongly disagreed with Anselm by arguing that Christ did not make some sort of sacrificial payment to the Father to satisfy his offended dignity. This very idea for him is appalling: ‘It is cruel and wicked that anyone should demand the blood of an innocent person as the price for anything, or that it should in any way please him that an innocent man should be slain.’[3]
Instead, Abelard emphasised Christ’s death as a perfect example of God’s love for humans. The death of Jesus is simply a way in which God shows how much He loves humans by identifying with their suffering, even to the point of death. Jesus took our nature, and in it, He took upon himself to teach us by both word and example even to the point of death. In this way, He binds us to himself through love.[4] As a closer look is taken into the theory, the reader is confronted with a clear interpretation of the efficacy of Christ’s death in subjective terms. Abelard claimed that the death of Christ has no significant effect outside the person who responds to it. The voluntary self-sacrifice of the Son of God intends to invoke in us a grateful love in response, so that in loving him we are forgiven.[5] Moreover, it is the display of the divine love at the cross that delivers us from fear and prompts our answering love. By responding to love with love, we no longer live in sin.[6] ‘Redemption is that greatest love kindled in us by Christ’s passion, a love which not only delivers us from the bondage of sin, but also acquires for us the true freedom of children, where love instead of fear becomes the ruling affection.’[7]
However, Abelard’s main challenge to Anselm revolved around the issue of forgiveness. God must be free to forgive if he wishes to forgive. If Jesus was able to pronounce forgiveness of people’s sins before he went to the cross, then it should be equally possible that God forgives others, if he so chooses.[8] Love is not the result for the forgiveness of sin but rather, its ground, he argued. To support his thesis, Abelard quotes the words of Jesus recorded in Lk. 7.47: ‘her sins are forgiven because she loved much’ (referring to the ‘sinner’ woman who wiped His feet with her hair at the Pharisee’s dining table).[9] Since the cross evokes our love for Christ, it is when we love him that we are actually forgiven, concluded Abelard. This consequently reduces justification to the manifestation of God’s love to us in Christ.[10]
The Subjective View: Modern Developments
Abelard may be rightly considered as the principal medieval exponent of what was to be later called ‘the moral-influence theory’.[11] However, it would be a mistake to identify the theory exclusively with Abelard’s views. Following a period of silence, the subjective view was revived again with the advent of liberal theology (19th century). The key proponents of the theory during this period were Horace Bushnell in the United States and Hastings Rashdall in England.[12]
Bushnell, Rashdall and other advocates of the moral-influence theory not only embraced Abelard’s views but developed them even further. In their writings, they stress that God’s nature is essentially love. Love is so emphasised that other divine qualities, such as justice and holiness, are minimised and overshadowed. Humans do not have to fear God’s wrath and justice. The problem with humanity is not necessarily that it has violated God’s law and consequently receives divine punishment. Rather, it lies in the human attitudes that keep them apart from God. [13] God is—and has always been—a loving and forgiving God. Therefore, there is no need to propitiate God or appease his anger or offer him some satisfaction. The problem lies within humans. They are self-centred, rebellious, turned in upon themselves, and closed to God.[14]
In this context, the death of Christ is interpreted as an example that brings home to us God’s love for humans. ‘The power of example in Christ’s cross makes us willing to accept the forgiveness which God has always wanted to give us.’[15] Moreover, Bushnell claims that the object of Jesus’ coming was not too ‘square up the account of our sin’[16] or to ‘satisfy the divine justice for us.’[17] Instead, the object of the birth, life and death of Jesus is found in his own words: ‘For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost’ (Lk. 19.10); ‘In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth’ (Jn 18.37). On the other hand, Paul wrote that ‘God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ’ (2 Cor. 5.19). The real work that Jesus came to do was healing souls. ‘[We] conceive a transaction moving on character in souls; a regenerative, saving, truth-subjecting, all-restoring, inward change of the life – in one word the establishment of the kingdom of God.’[18]
Rashdall, on the other hand, claimed that the only condition of salvation is repentance: ‘The truly penitent man who confesses his sins to God receives instant forgiveness. God is a loving Father who will pardon sin upon the sole condition of true repentance.’[19] It is our repentance and conversion produced within us, as we contemplate the cross, which enable God to forgive us. ‘The significance of the cross is not that it expressed God’s love in dealing with our sins, but that it has evoked our love and so made any divine dealing with sins unnecessary. Good works of love, instead of being the evidence of salvation, become the ground on which it is bestowed.’[20]
Summary
From its Abelardian beginnings to its modern developments, the moral-influence theory could be summarisedas follows: Jesus’ life and death must not be seen as a payment, or a victory over the devil, or a satisfaction of a debt owed to God, but rather as a demonstration of God’s love that moves sinners to repent and love God.
The Subjective View: A Biblical Evaluation
The tenability of the moral-influence theory depends on the outcome of a close biblical (New Testament) evaluation. This evaluation must be fair for the simple reason that a very brief analysis of biblical references to atonement indicates the coexistence of a variety of atonement themes. All of them contribute towards a better understanding of atonement. The evoking love of God—highly promoted by the subjective view—is certainly one of these themes, and does receive considerable New Testament support.
Thus, in the Book of Romans, Paul declares: ‘God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us’ (Rom. 5.8). Elsewhere in Romans, Paul refers to God as ‘He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all’ (Rom. 8.32). In the following verses he illustrates the concrete way in which this demonstration of love subjectively empowers God’s people to face all sorts of adversity.[21] John, on the other hand, points out that ‘Jesus Christ laid down his life for us’ (1 Jn 3.16) denoting what real love is all about. John then refers explicitly to the ‘moral influence’ of Christ’s death on our actions (v. 17).
On the other hand, supporters of the subjective view tend to reject the numerous scriptural references that are incompatible with the subjective view. Significantly, while commenting on Jesus’ ransom-saying (in Mk 10.45), Rashdall labels the saying as a ‘doctrinally coloured insertion’[22] while Jesus’ eucharistic words about the blood of the new covenant and the forgiveness of sins as secondary.[23] Rashdall thus falls into the trap of circular reasoning, assuming what he wishes to prove. Because he is so convinced Christ never taught that his death was necessary for the forgiveness of sins, Rashdall appears to disallow inspiration to stand in his way.[24]
There are other reasons that seriously question the claim that the subjective view has all the answers for Christ’s atonement. Most significantly, the moral-influence theory does not seem to really recognise (the biblical concept of) the radicality and seriousness of sin. Instead, it entirely lacks a profound biblical understanding of man’s radical rebellion against God, of God’s wrath as his outraged antagonism to human sin, and of the indispensable necessity of a satisfaction for sin which satisfies God’s own character of justice and love.[25] If anything, the NT is crystal clear that sin has made man an enemy of God and subject to God’s righteous wrath (Rom. 3:11-18; 8:7; Eph. 2:1-3). Beyond what is suggested by the subjective view, the Scriptures view Christ’s death with certainty as necessary for our forgiveness and salvation. His atonement is primarily seen as substitutional, that is, Christ died in our place (Isa. 53; Rom. 8.32; Eph. 5.2; Gal. 3.13; 1 Thess. 5:10). However, penal substitution, as in the case of the moral influence theory, does not offer the full picture either .
In addition, the subjective view seems to be flawed in its own central emphasis. The focus is on the love of Christ, which both shines from the cross and elicits our responsive love.[26] Indeed, everyone would agree that Christ gave himself for us because He loved us (Gal. 2.20; Eph. 5.2, 25; 1 Jn 3.16) and that His love awakens our love (1 Jn 4.19). However, a question remains and requires a well-grounded answer: how does the cross demonstrate Christ’s love?
Significantly, the NT does not primarily portray the death of Christ as a demonstration of love in itself, but only in that Christ gave his life to rescue others. Christ’s death must have had an objective before it could have had an appeal. Moreover, if Jesus’ death was exemplary and not functional, one could argue that such a display of love would be unnecessary, if not illogical. John Stott concludes that ‘[t]he subjective view, in its strictest logic, does not really quite answer the question of why Jesus had to die...Paul and John saw love in the cross because they understood it respectively as a death for sinners (Rom. 5.8) and as a ‘propitiation’ for sins (1 Jn 4.10).’[28] The immediate implication here is that the cross may be seen as a proof of God’s love only when at the same time it is seen as a proof of God's justice. Thus, God’s love and God's justice must be seen as simultaneously revealed. After all, we can speak of God's love only in connection with the reality of the cross. As Paul declares: ‘Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again’ (2 Cor. 5.14-15).
Summary
A careful biblical evaluation of the subjective view finds it untenable as a stand-alone, all-comprehensive theory. The Scriptures clearly affirm that the cross displayed powerfully the love that God had for mankind. However, Christ’s death was not a mere martyrdom act. Numerous biblical references would affirm the objectivity and functionality of Christ’s atonement. Christ did die our death and he did become ‘a ransom for many.’ In other words, the scriptural record encompasses a much wider view of atonement than allowed/covered by the moral-influence theory .
The Subjective View: Theological Implications
At this point, it is appropriate to consider the theological implications that derive from the biblical analysis. The question would be: What is really implied if the subjective view was the only tenable theory of atonement? What remains to be said if the moral-iinfluence theory was the only one that provided the explanation as to why Jesus had to die?
1. Christ died on the cross as a mere example, so that humans may emulate His love. The implication would be that the entire biblical idea of an objective, functional death of Christ, badly needed to solve the sin problem, is to be nullified.
2. Our sins are forgiven by means of our response to God’s love. The implication would be that the biblical view that Christ’s death enables our forgiveness and justification is to be ignored.
3. Christ’s death is seen primarily as a demonstration of God’s love. The implication would be that the biblical view that Christ died for us and instead of us is to be abandoned.
4. God’s nature must be seen as essentially love. The implication would be that the biblical concepts of God’s justice, holiness and wrath are to be considered outdated.
Lastly, in order for the subjective view to appear somewhat tenable, then every biblical text incompatible with this view must be rejected. Consequently, the divine inspiration of Jesus’ ransom-sayings, his substitutionary remarks and his eucharistic pronouncements is to be denied, avoided or in the best case, kindly ignored.
Conclusion
No single theory of atonement provides a comprehensive and conclusive answer to the doctrine of atonement. Instead, each of these theories, including the subjective view, highlights various aspects of the doctrine of atonement, thus comprising a full-colour bouquet. The moment when these theories claim exclusivity is the moment when they fail in their tenability while examined in the larger biblical context.
A biblical evaluation of the moral-influence theory (the subjective view) and a reflection on its major implications prompt to the conclusion that this theory cannot claim exclusivity as the theory of atonement. Clearly, Christ’s atoning sacrifice was not a mere subjective, emotional event with no real objective or point. The tenability of the subjective-only view must be seriously questioned, in terms of NT writings bearing on Christ’s atoning death. On the other hand, the subjective view must be commended for its attempt to bring in the ethical and moral concerns, which are otherwise neglected by the other theories ofatonement. The love of God displayed on the cross is indeed touching and highly motivational. It evokes a powerful reaction in all those who respond to it. Yet, as one looks at Christ’s cross, one is also reminded of the fact that God’s love and God's justice must go hand in hand.[29]
Comments