Problems with substitutionary atonement

Christianity has come up with numerous explanations about why Jesus went to the cross and died. 

The substitutionary atonement theory is that idea that Jesus was the final atoning sacrifice for our sins. It was a divine transaction where the blood of God was necessary to save all of us from the wrath of God. Jesus was the atonement for sins and substituted our place. Hence, the phrase.

It is likely the most common perspective that one might find in the United States today. In certain circles, it is inseparable from the Gospel itself. Put another way, one must believe in substitutionary atonement in order to be Christian at all.

I've heard people say that if you challenge it, then you challenge the Biblical teaching. Of course. (sigh)

There are numerous problems with this overall idea.

First, it offers a seeming contradiction. Why does God need to kill his son (or anyone) to show us that killing is wrong? What does that say about God? If God made the universe and all that is in it, couldn't have God made a different system that didn't require? If not, is God all that loving?

Second, substitutionary atonement has a history as well. In fact, it didn't become a popular idea until the Middle Ages. Its popularity was burgeoned by the medieval concept of justice, where punishment was based on the social standing of the victim. For instance, killing the king's deer required a greater punishment than killing a commoner's animal. 

So, if one offended God, who is infinite, then the punishment should be infinite. Thus, atonement should be infinite, which could only be purchased with the blood of Jesus

Prior to the Middle Ages, the more dominant expiation for why Jesus died was Christus Victor. More on that in another post. 

Third, substitutionary atonement doesn't match the way sacrifices were actually used in the Jewish Scriptures.

For starters, God does not want human sacrifice. That is a fundamental principle in the Jewish tradition stemming from the aborted sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. I've never heard any explanation why this foundational principle is disregarded with Jesus.

Also, blood is not always required for the forgiveness of sins by sacrifice. This is demonstrated by Leviticus 5:11-13 which allows grain sacrifices as a sin offering if one cannot afford an animal.

Fourth, substitionary atonement does not match the teachings of Jesus. On numerous occasions, Jesus forgave sins by declaration without having gone to the cross. So if Jesus can declare sins forgiven, then Jesus didn't need to die to forgive sins.

In fact, Luke 5:24 makes this precise point.

Viewed in this way, then Jesus declaration of "Father, forgiven them for they know not what they do" while on the cross is a universe; declaration of the forgiveness of all sins.(Luke 23:34)