Why the Cross

9 min read · 1,638 words

The previous chapters showed that Jesus is real, that his life fits the Old Testament prophecies, and that the prophecies foretold his suffering and death. This chapter takes up the theological question: why was the Cross necessary? And how does the Christian answer respond to the standard Muslim objection that “no soul shall bear the burden of another” (Q 53:38)?

The Christian answer is not that God required a violent death because he was angry. The Christian answer is that God himself, in the person of the Son, voluntarily took the penalty for sin in his own assumed human nature. The Cross is the place where God’s justice (sin really is dealt with) and God’s mercy (sinners are forgiven) meet in one act.

The problem

The Old Testament identifies the fundamental problem in the relationship between God and humanity: God is holy and we are not.

God’s holiness is described as a positive moral perfection that excludes evil. Habakkuk 1:13: “You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong.” Isaiah 6:5, when the prophet sees the Lord on his throne, cries out: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips.”

Human sinfulness is described as universal. Psalm 14:3: “They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.” Ecclesiastes 7:20: “There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.”

The Old Testament takes this contradiction seriously. The sacrificial system, the prophetic warnings, the exile of Israel: all assume that God’s holiness and human sin cannot just coexist. Something has to give.

Why God cannot just forgive

A natural objection, and one Muslims often raise, is to ask why God cannot simply forgive sin. He is sovereign. Why does he need a payment? Why not just wipe the slate clean?

The Christian answer is that simply forgiving sin without addressing it is not mercy; it is moral indifference. A judge who forgives every crime without punishment is not merciful but corrupt. The moral order requires that wrong be dealt with, not pretended away.

Compare it to debt. A friend lends you a large sum of money and you cannot repay it. There are three options. (a) Your friend demands repayment you cannot give: you go bankrupt. (b) Your friend simply cancels the debt: this is real mercy, but the debt is still a real loss to him. He absorbs it. (c) Your friend pretends there was no debt: this is not mercy at all; it is a lie. Real forgiveness costs the forgiver. The cost is the absorption of the debt.

God’s forgiveness is option (b). The debt of sin is real, the moral cost is real, but God himself absorbs it. The question is how he absorbs it.

The Old Testament sacrificial system

The Old Testament sets up the sacrificial system as a typological pointer. Leviticus 16 describes the Day of Atonement ritual. Two goats. One is sacrificed and its blood is brought into the Holy of Holies. The other (the scapegoat) has the high priest’s hands laid on its head while he confesses the people’s sins, and it is sent away into the wilderness “bearing all their iniquities.”

The two goats together represent two aspects of atonement: a sacrifice that addresses God’s holiness, and a substitution that bears human guilt away. The system points beyond itself. The Old Testament writers themselves acknowledge this. David in Psalm 51:16-17 writes: “For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit.”

The book of Hebrews develops the argument explicitly. The repetition of the sacrifices was itself the marker of their insufficiency. “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). The Old Testament sacrifices were placeholders pointing toward a single sufficient sacrifice that the system itself anticipated but could not provide.

The Cross as the antitype

The Christian claim is that Jesus’s death on the Cross is the once-for-all sacrifice that the Old Testament system pointed toward. The repeated animal sacrifices were the shadow; the Cross is the substance.

Hebrews 10:11-14 makes the contrast explicit. The Levitical priests stand throughout the temple service because their work is never finished. Jesus offers a single sacrifice and then sits down at the right hand of God, because the work is complete. The sitting down is the marker of completion. The work is done.

Why does the death of one specific person count for the sins of many? Because of who he is. The Christian doctrine of the Incarnation says that the Son of God assumed human nature in the womb of Mary, lived a full human life, and died as a man. The death is a real human death. The person who died is the eternal Son.

When the eternal Son dies in his assumed human nature, the death is of infinite worth, because the person is divine. The penalty for sin is borne in full, by someone with the capacity to bear it. The Old Testament substitutionary structure (one bearing the penalty for another) is fulfilled at the divine scale.

The Quranic objection: Q 53:38

The Quran objects to substitutionary atonement at Q 53:38: “That no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another.” Variations appear at Q 6:164, Q 17:15, Q 35:18, and Q 39:7.

The orthodox Muslim reading is that no person can bear the moral guilt of another person’s sin. So the Christian claim that Jesus bore the sins of humanity is in principle impossible.

The Christian response has two parts.

First, the Christian doctrine does not violate Q 53:38. Jesus is not “another” person bearing the penalty for sins committed against an unrelated party. Jesus is God in human nature, voluntarily taking the penalty that God himself, in his holiness, requires. The offended party (God) is the one paying. There is no transfer of guilt from a sinner to an unrelated third party. The penalty is absorbed by the divine person who imposes it.

The doctrine that supports this response is the Trinity (one God in three persons) and the Incarnation (the Son who assumed human nature). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God. The Son who died is fully God. The penalty borne by the Son in his human nature is borne by God himself. Far from violating Q 53:38, the Christian doctrine is the only doctrine of atonement the principle leaves open.

Second, the Muslim alternative does not actually escape the principle either. The orthodox Muslim view is that on Judgment Day, each person bears their own sin and either receives forgiveness from Allah or receives punishment. The forgiveness pathway asks Allah simply to remit the moral debt of sin.

But remission without payment is mercy without moral cost. It is the option (c) from the analogy above: pretending the debt was not there. If Allah can simply remit the debt, then the moral burden of sin can be removed without being borne, and Q 53:38 is itself violated (the burden was removed without anyone bearing it). If Allah cannot simply remit the debt, then the sinner must bear it personally, which leaves no room for forgiveness.

The Christian framework gives the internal logic the Muslim framework lacks. The penalty is borne in full, by the offended party in his own assumed human nature. The forgiveness flows from the bearing, not from a bare remission. Justice and mercy meet in the same act.

A point of contact for a Muslim reader: Islamic law itself has substitutionary atonement mechanisms (kaffara, an animal sacrifice or payment to the poor in place of a personal penalty). The principle of substitution is not foreign to the Islamic legal tradition. The Christian doctrine is the same principle applied at the divine scale.

The Eastern Orthodox frame: theosis

The Western Christian tradition (Catholic and Protestant) often emphasizes the legal aspect of the Cross: Jesus is the substitute who satisfies the demands of divine justice. The Eastern Orthodox tradition emphasizes the transformational aspect: Jesus is the divine person who unites human nature to himself, defeats death from within, and opens the possibility of union with God for those who participate in him.

The framework is theosis, the union of the redeemed with the divine nature. The classical formulation is from Athanasius (On the Incarnation, mid-fourth century): “He became man that we might become God.” The biblical anchor is 2 Peter 1:4: “He has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature.”

The Cross is not just a legal transaction. It is the moment in which God in human nature passes through death and out the other side, opening a path through death that humanity could not pass on its own. The Christian’s union with Christ, through baptism and the Eucharist, is the entry into the trajectory the Cross opened.

The Cross is the descent into death. The Resurrection (next chapter) is the ascent through death to new life. Together they are the saving event. The Christian gospel is not “Christ died for our sins” alone. It is “Christ died for our sins… was buried… was raised on the third day” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). The next chapter takes up the historical case for the Resurrection.