Critiquing: #084 — Why did Jesus have to die? What did it achieve?

September 23, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Jesus’ Atonement — Forgiveness Limitations — Sin and World Condition — Narrative Theology — Evil’s Defeat

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	C+	The episode presents a theologically sound discussion from a Christian perspective. However, it often lacks the robust backing of academic references or historical-critical methods, which would enhance the factual accuracy of the claims made. For example, the alternative translation of “anideia” in Luke 11:8 is presented without extensive evidence from Greek literature or critical scholarship.
Degree of Coherence	B	The discussion follows a logically coherent structure, with well-connected arguments that align with the broader narrative theology. The coherence is maintained through the consistent application of theological concepts, although some arguments would benefit from more detailed explanations to clarify complex theological points.
Absence of Fallacies	B-	The episode is largely free from logical fallacies, though some statements could be seen as appeals to tradition or authority, especially when relying heavily on scriptural interpretations without critical examination. For instance, the assertion that Jesus’ death was necessary for God’s plan is rooted in traditional Christian beliefs and not subjected to rigorous logical scrutiny.
Degree of Evidence	C-	While the episode references scriptural texts and theological works, it lacks detailed citations and empirical evidence to substantiate its claims fully. The discussion would be stronger with references to scholarly research, historical context, and critical analysis of the scriptures cited. For example, the interpretation of Jesus’ death and resurrection would benefit from historical-critical methods to evaluate the reliability and context of the Gospel accounts.
Degree of Testability	D+	The theological claims made are inherently difficult to test or verify empirically. Statements about divine intention, the efficacy of atonement, and the metaphysical impact of Jesus’ death are not subject to empirical validation. As such, these claims rest on faith-based acceptance rather than empirical evidence or falsifiability.
Rational Confidence	C	The episode maintains a moderate level of confidence in its theological assertions, consistent with the evidence provided. However, the reliance on faith and tradition rather than empirical validation means that rational confidence is limited to those who share the same theological presuppositions. For a broader audience, the lack of empirical support and rigorous evidence may reduce the degree of rational confidence.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Testability:

The theological claims made are inherently difficult to test or verify empirically. Statements about divine intention, the efficacy of atonement, and the metaphysical impact of Jesus’ death are not subject to empirical validation. As such, these claims rest on faith-based acceptance rather than empirical evidence or falsifiability.

“If I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself.”

This claim, while significant within Christian theology, cannot be empirically tested or falsified. It relies on faith and doctrinal acceptance rather than evidence that can be observed and measured. A more rigorous approach would acknowledge these limitations and frame the theological assertions within their appropriate epistemological context.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument 1: The Necessity of Jesus’ Death

1. Premise 1: If Jesus’ death was necessary, it must fulfill a divine purpose.
2. Premise 2: The divine purpose of Jesus’ death is the atonement for human sin and the establishment of God’s kingdom.
3. Premise 3: The scriptures and Jesus’ teachings point towards the necessity of this sacrificial act.
4. Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus’ death was necessary to achieve divine atonement and the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth.

Counter-Argument:
The concept of atonement through Jesus’ sacrificial death is deeply rooted in Christian theology, yet it can be challenged from both a theological and a historical perspective. Theologically, it raises questions about the nature of a forgiving deity. If God is omnipotent and merciful, why would a blood sacrifice be necessary for forgiveness? This seems to impose human limitations on divine forgiveness. Historically, the idea of atonement through sacrifice is not unique to Christianity and can be seen in various ancient cultures. This suggests that the sacrificial narrative might be more reflective of cultural contexts rather than an absolute divine requirement. Moreover, alternative interpretations within Christianity propose that Jesus’ life and teachings, rather than his death alone, are central to the concept of salvation and reconciliation with God.

---

Argument 2: The Impact of Jesus’ Death on Sin and Evil

1. Premise 1: If Jesus’ death effectively defeated sin and evil, the world should reflect this victory.
2. Premise 2: The Christian doctrine states that Jesus’ death and resurrection inaugurated God’s kingdom and defeated the powers of darkness.
3. Premise 3: Despite this claim, observable evidence shows that sin and evil persist in the world.
4. Conclusion: Therefore, the impact of Jesus’ death on sin and evil may be more spiritual and eschatological rather than immediate and observable.

Counter-Argument:
The persistence of sin and evil in the world challenges the claim that Jesus’ death and resurrection decisively defeated these forces. While the spiritual and eschatological implications are significant, the observable reality suggests that the defeat of sin and evil is not yet complete. This discrepancy can be interpreted in various ways: some theologians argue that the victory over sin and evil is an ongoing process that involves human participation in God’s redemptive work. Others propose that the ultimate defeat of evil will only be realized in the eschaton, the final culmination of history according to Christian eschatology. Additionally, the expectation that the world would be immediately transformed post-resurrection may stem from a misunderstanding of the nature of divine action, which often operates in ways that are not immediately evident to human perception.

---

Argument 3: The Role of Jesus’ Death in Forgiveness

1. Premise 1: If Jesus’ death is central to the forgiveness of sins, then forgiveness should be uniquely tied to this event.
2. Premise 2: Throughout the Gospels, Jesus forgives sins without requiring his death as a precondition.
3. Premise 3: The possibility of forgiveness existed before and after Jesus’ crucifixion.
4. Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus’ death serves a broader theological purpose beyond the mere act of forgiveness.

Counter-Argument:
The ability of Jesus to forgive sins during his lifetime suggests that forgiveness is not solely dependent on his sacrificial death. This indicates that while Jesus’ death holds significant theological and symbolic meaning, the divine capacity for forgiveness transcends this single event. The broader theological purpose of Jesus’ death can be seen as part of a divine plan to demonstrate the depth of God’s love and commitment to humanity. It serves as a powerful symbol of sacrifice and redemption, aiming to inspire moral transformation and commitment among believers. Furthermore, the emphasis on Jesus’ death should not overshadow his life and teachings, which provide a comprehensive framework for understanding divine forgiveness, moral behavior, and the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth. This perspective allows for a more expansive and inclusive understanding of divine mercy and justice that is not confined to a single historical act.

◉ Addressing Argument #2:

The Incomplete Explanations for the Persistence of Sin and Evil

The persistence of sin and evil in the world remains a glaring contradiction within Christian theology. Argument #2 posits that Jesus’ death and resurrection defeated the powers of darkness, yet the continued existence of sin and evil suggests a failure in this supposed divine act. This essay challenges the Christian narrative, highlighting the intrinsic irrationality of unwavering faith in the absence of conclusive evidence and the reluctance to consider more plausible explanations.

Argument #2 fails to address other possible explanations for the continued existence of sin and evil. The Christian narrative assumes that Jesus’ death and resurrection effectively conquered these forces. However, the observable reality contradicts this assertion. If Jesus truly triumphed over sin and evil, why do they still permeate our world? Christians offer spiritual and eschatological justifications, claiming that the victory is either invisible or yet to be fully realized. These explanations conveniently sidestep the need for tangible evidence, relying instead on abstract, unverifiable assertions.

One alternative explanation is that Jesus failed in his mission. This possibility is never entertained within Christian discourse, yet it is a logical consideration. If Jesus’ death was meant to eradicate sin and evil, the continued presence of these forces suggests a failure of divine intervention. Instead of grappling with this uncomfortable possibility, Christians cling to the notion of an invisible victory, demonstrating a stubborn refusal to confront contradictory evidence.

Another plausible explanation is that Jesus was a mere human who was later reframed as a Messiah by his followers. Historical analysis reveals that many figures have been posthumously elevated to divine status by their followers. The mythologizing of Jesus could have followed a similar pattern. The reluctance to consider this possibility stems from an emotional and psychological investment in the divine narrative, rather than a commitment to empirical truth.

The absolute confidence that Christians exhibit in their beliefs, despite the lack of absolute evidence, is a testament to the irrational nature of faith. Faith, by definition, involves belief without evidence. When evidence contradicts belief, rationality demands that we reconsider our stance. Yet, Christians persist in their unwavering faith, demonstrating an intrinsic irrationality that is immune to contradictory evidence. This irrationality is not just a personal quirk but a fundamental flaw in the Christian worldview.

In conclusion, Argument #2 fails to provide a comprehensive explanation for the persistence of sin and evil. The refusal to entertain the possibilities that Jesus either failed or was merely human reveals a deep-seated irrationality within Christian faith. This unwavering confidence, in the absence of conclusive evidence, highlights the fundamental flaws in relying on faith as a means of understanding the world. Christians are invited to reconsider their beliefs in light of the persistent evidence of sin and evil, and to engage in a more rational discourse that embraces empirical evidence and logical reasoning.

---

We warmly welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section below. Let’s engage in a robust and respectful dialogue about these important issues.