What Does Jesus Do?

Does the cross do anything?

That Jesus died to save us is a belief held by 99% of Christians.^[1] As the pretty awful joke (if you can call it a joke) goes: ‘take the Christ out of Christian and you are left with Ian, and Ian can’t save you’. Sorry Ian. This idea that Jesus Christ, through his life, death and resurrection, saves you^[2] in some way, appears throughout the New Testament (it’s what we call the doctrine of Atonement), and is framed in a few different ways. Here are a few examples:

- The suffering servant who gives his life for many (Isaiah 53 and Mark 10)

- Law and sacrifice (Leviticus and Hebrews 9)

- Lament Psalms; pain, abandonment and trust in the Father (Psalms 69/22, Mark 15 and John 19)

- The example of Jesus (Romans 5:8)

- Defeats evil (Colossians 2:13–15/Revelation 12)

These themes are picked up by various theologians who try to interpret the selection of passages to develop an atonement theory and answer questions like what does Jesus do, and what does that mean for us? This is necessary because we don’t have a gospel writer sitting down and going ‘so here is exactly what happens and what it means for you’. Instead, like with most of our theology, we are attempting to synthesise the breadth of scripture into ways we can apply to our lives and make sense of it.

I think it’s quite important that we don’t get bogged down in a single way of describing Jesus’ work (atonement theory), essentially because the bible doesn’t describe his activity in a single way. That said, atonement theory is useful because it allows us to orient the way we talk about what Jesus does. And the way in which we focus on what Jesus does and the effects of the cross/resurrection will impact the rest of our theology. So, while there are multiple themes that we can believe (in some sense), where we put the emphasis does matter to our theology. These themes will play out in our worship and prayer. For example, if you think Jesus satisfies the wrath of the Father, you’ll probably have no issues with the song In Christ Alone, “Till on that cross where Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied.” It’s been a contentious line for some – it probably suits most Calvin fans,^[3] but I’ve been in churches that don’t sing this song because of that line, as it implies God is angry at us and has a desire to punish you for your sins, and by extension punishes Jesus.^[4]

All atonement theories have their pros and cons, and that’s partly because atonement theories are attempting to articulate what the NT says about what Jesus does in a way that makes sense for the culture in which they inhabit. For example, satisfaction theory pulls on biblical themes (Matt 6:12/Colossians 2:14), and Anslem interprets this in light of the feudal system he lives in. A few centuries later, Calvin and others will change the emphasis of these passages and develop penal substitution.^[5] I don’t think this is a particular problem, because as noted, there are biblical passages that support this sort of reading. Where it does become a problem is when someone insists that the only valid reading of the atonement is penal substitution or satisfaction (or Christus victor, or whatever). Similarly, using these passages in these ways is an interpretative decision, and so claiming that there are no alternative readings is also problematic. As we have seen, Anselm and Calvin use the same sort of biblical passages, but they come to slightly different conclusions.

Given that the biblical authors frame Jesus’ work in multiple ways, we do a disservice to the scriptures by limiting our understanding to one specific approach. That doesn’t mean there aren’t better and worse theories of the atonement, for example, Thomas Williams described Abelard’s approach of exemplarism as, according to his detractors, “embracing a most unsatisfactory alternative.”^[6] There will naturally be atonement theories that we think don’t cut it, but often these are because they are too narrow, not too broad.

The claim that Jesus’ death and resurrection actually do something is central to Christianity. This activity of Jesus is both corporate - saves the world and creation -and also personal. Jesus saves you. This doesn’t mean you are now going to be perfect, and life will be easy (if anything, it might well be the opposite), but it is good. Relationship with God is made possible through Christ’s work. We might disagree on the best way to frame this, or on the specifics of when it happens, but that Jesus saves, no matter what that means, is a good thing for you and me.

P.S If you want me to do a deeper dive into any atonement theories, let me know!

---

^[1] Are are ofc some people who don’t believe this. But it’s pretty rare.

^[2] And maybe also his ascension – check out David Moffat for more on this.

^[3] ‘Jesus Christ was made a substitute and a surety in the place of transgressors and even submitted as a criminal, to sustain and suffer all the punishment which would have been inflicted on them.’, See John Calvin, Institutes Of Christian Religion, 2.16.1.

^[4] of course, you could just interpret it at Gods anger at sin, rather than the person – but whether this gets you round the problem, I’ll leave to you to decide.

^[5] As Berkoff writes, ‘While Anselm regards sin primarily as an infringement on the honour of God, the Reformers look upon it first of all as a transgression of the law of God and therefore as guilt rather than as an insult…Thus, the atonement is lifted out of the sphere of private rights and into that of public law. [T]he Reformers also pointed out that…satisfaction rendered through the sacrifice of Christ was satisfaction through punishment…that the sufferings of Christ were penal and vicarious.’ See, Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, 183

^[6] Thomas Williams, Cambridge companion to Abelard, ‘Sin Grace and Redemption’, 258.