One of the most pivotal concepts in contemporary Christianity has to do with whether Jesus died for the sins of humanity. For many, this is a central tenet of their Christian faith; for others, the very idea that a God would require the spilling of blood -- let alone that of his son -- to forgive us seems appalling.
In my "Banned Questions" book series, I've tried to pull together some of the most challenging questions about the Christian faith I could find. Then, instead of offering cut-and-dried answers, I pose the questions to a group of theological thinkers and activists to see what they think, with the intent of allowing readers to decide what they believe.
Given the centrality of this particular question, I decided it would make a good opening topic for the newest book in the series, "Banned Questions About Jesus." I posed this to the respondents as follows:
Why would God send Jesus as the sacrificial Lamb of God, dying for the sins of the world, instead of just destroying sin, or perhaps offering grace and forgiveness to the very ones created by God? Why does an all-powerful being need a mediator anyway?
Chris Haw, co-author of "Jesus for President," says:
I have found it important for my mind to get "sacrificial lamb" idea back into working shape by, for example, considering how Jesus also died from the sins of the world. ... A multitude of our sins, not God, killed Jesus. And for what it is worth, the "sending his son" verse should not be understood as God killing someone (Did God's denunciation of human sacrifice not begin with the binding of Isaac?) No: we killed God's Son, and it was sinful and unjust.
Haw's response resonates with John Dominic Crossan's understanding of what was the cause of Jesus' death (humanity, not God), while also pushing up against the myth of redemptive violence, as put forward by such theologians as Walter Wink.
"There is a long and complex tradition of varying interpretations of the meaning of the death of Jesus," says Lee Camp, author of "Who is My Enemy?" He continues:
The early church primarily thought of the death of Jesus as a victory over the powers of sin and death. ... In the medieval era, another trajectory became predominant in the west: Anselm argued that a God-Man was necessitated because of the great gravity of sin: sin dishonored God, and humankind had to make some reparation, some satisfaction for sin. Humankind was unable to make such a repayment, and thus Jesus became the substitute, restoring the honor due to God through his obedience unto death.
It is worth noting that, in Camp's historical context, the notion of Jesus dying for our sins did not gain traction in the Christian imagination until at least a dozen centuries after Christ's death. This is critical in our understanding of the crucifixion, namely because so many assume today that their present belief in substitutionary atonement has forever been the cornerstone of Christian theology. Not so, suggests Camp.
"By the sixteenth century, Calvin focused upon punishment," he says. "Because of the immensity of humankind's sin, God's wrath demanded punishment; Jesus became the substitute punishment."
Australian peace activist Jarrod McKenna takes a different approach, affirming the need for sacrificial atonement, but suggesting we distort its purpose:
The Gospel is not that some deity takes out its rage on an innocent victim so he doesn't have to take it out on all of us eternally. God doesn't need blood. God doesn't need a mediator. We do!The Lamb of God is not offered to God by humanity, but is God offered to us to enable a new humanity. God is reconciling the world to God's self through Christ by knowingly becoming our victim, exposing this idolatrous system that promise order, safety, peace and protection in exchange for victims.
This value of sacrifice as part of one's faith also was common in the Roman culture, where the types of sacrifices usually were specific to the characteristics of the Gods being worshiped. So a God of the harvest would require an offering of produce, and so on. Some pre-Christian cultures, such as those from Carthage, even practiced human sacrifice, though the Romans generally condemned it.
Interestingly, a millennium prior to Anselm's understanding of blood atonement, there were very different understandings of Jesus' death germinating in the Christian collective consciousness.
In the fourth century A.D., Gregory of Nyssa proposed that Jesus' death was an act of liberation, freeing humanity from enslavement to Satan. Seven hundred years later,
around the same time that Anselm presented to concept of substitutionary atonement, a theologian named Abelard proposed that it actually was that Jesus' response of pure -- some might emphasize nonviolent -- love in the face of violence, hatred and death was transformational in the human psyche, reorienting us toward a theology of sacrificial love over justice or atonement.
Contemporary theologian Walter Wink goes a step further than Abelard, claiming that atonement theology is a corruption of the Gospel, focusing on an act of violence rather than the values of peaceful humility and compassion lived and taught by Christ.
Resolving the debate about the causes of, and purpose behind, Jesus' death is an impossible task. More important, though is to make clear that such a debate is going on. For too long, Christians and non-Christians have assumed that all who yearn to follow the way of Christ universally believe Christ died for our sins. For millions, this not only defines their faith, but their understanding of the very nature of Good as well. For others, it is the basis for rejecting Christianity, understanding it as an inherently violent religion, centered on a bloodthirsty God that requires death in exchange for mercy.
This is not the God in which I put my faith, and I am not alone.
Follow Christian Piatt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/christianpiatt
Substitutionary atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Moody Bible Institute | Moody Believes | Substitutionary Atonement
http://jesussoldiers.blogspot.com/
"No amount of belief makes something a fact." - James Randi
This would be bad marketing. Forgiveness and grace would not create guilt - a necessity for peddling religion, which creates the need of redemption.
God is omniscient. God created original sin with full knowledge. God sent Jesus to earth to atone for the rib woman listening to the snake, so either God is complicit in the torture and death of his own Son, or he is not omniscient.
Before you start going off on that whole free will of humanity argument, realize that free will does not change the definition of omniscient or omnipotence. Either God is not omniscient, or he is a masochistic jerk.
However, there is a dichotomy between thoughts and actions. Man is not judged primarily by his thoughts but by his actions. Man's "will", not free will, is expressed by the actions he takes more importantly than just by his thoughts.
And, would you not agree that there are consequences for our actions? And, it doesn't matter whether our actions are accidental or premeditated there are still consequences. Doesn't it appear that nearly all the consequences are represented by a physical action as well.
Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you were "all knowing" and "all powerful"? If so how did you react? Have you ever allowed certain things to take place in your life even if you knew the outcome would be negative. Do you or did you exempt yourself from the responsibility? Why do you hold God to a higher standard than yourself when you too create your own misfortunes?
I take responsibility for my actions and rarely exempt myself from causation.
But then again, I am not a fictional character that has been propped up as the 'alpha and the omega' (Revelations 1:8).
The Bible is touted as perfect and accurate. If this is true the preceding and following passages allow us to judge every action in the Bible as being predestined, pre-considered and part of God's plan.
or Ephesians 1:11: [11] In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,
Because of that, I hold God complicit in child torture (Abraham binding Isaac), disgusting moral behavior (torturing Job for a bet with Satan), and the worst--sending his son to be murdered with full knowledge.
I do not propose that I am omniscient and omnipresent, and although I am not a believer, I am still a scholar of literature and have every right to apply intrinisc and extrinsic literary theory to God as if he were (and is) a character in fiction.
I am a secular humanist who believes that science is the greatest way to discover the intricacies of the universe. I will take a double blind scientific study or mathematical proof far more seriously than a passage in a bronze age collection of overly edited poems collected from mostly illiterate desert wanderers.
I agree that man is judged on his actions, and not on his thoughts, although thoughts and actions are obviously closely integrated. This is actually against scripture, as I remember that Jesus said that if you have considered sinning, you have already sinned.
Matthew chapter 5 (NLT): 27 "You have heard that the law of Moses says, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
or, if you like your Scripture more Old Testament style:
Psalm 139 (TEV)
1 Lord, you have examined me and you know me.
2 You know everything I do;
from far away you understand all my thoughts.
3 You see me, whether I am working or resting;
you know all my actions.
4 Even before I speak, you already know what I will say.
I am not a fatalist, but I do agree with DH Lawrence that we are responsible for what happens to us by virtue of our choices.
So yes, all consequences are related to my decisions and proper use of my cerebral cortex.
Death is a pretty well known and accepted fact by everyone. So, then by your statement you are saying that you are going to die as a result of your sins. You have accepted that conclusion? Or, do you really think that you are going to die as a result of your biology aging or as a result from an accident?
I venture to say that you really do not believe in "sin" to begin with. Therefore, any story about sin to you is fantastical. There may truth in wine...but, not in the person drinking it.
The only stories of Jesus ineracting with people come from one source...the Bible. No local scribes of the time saw fit to write about this saviour of all of humanity. That is kind of odd if you bother to think about it.
I know there are a handful of people that wrote of Christians but they are all written later than when Jesus supposedly lived and they are about only people who called themselves followers of Christ but not actual accounts of a person named Jesus that lead those Christians. No secular accounts of his amazing miracles.
And really why would the historical proof nof Jesus and his early followers be limited to just a few small accounts?
You are guilty of looking at the events of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus in the wrong perspective. You are expecting Jesus to be viewed, by the people of His time, in the same way that He is viewed in the present.
During His lifetime He was only known about by a small number of people compared to the rest of the population in His area. What scribes would have even bothered to write about Him? The Jewish scribes certainly wouldn't have written anything about Him to add any credence to His existence. To the Roman scholars, if there were any in that area, he wouldn't have been worthy to write about. To them He was an insignificant instigator of sedition who caused the Jewish leaders concern.
Why would you expect volumes to have been written about Him other than by His followers? Knowing Jesus to be the Savior of mankind is a present day knowledge...not one which was evident to the population as a whole during His life.
And, as His followers witnessed, after His death and resurrection, to the world His popularity grew. Even to the extent that Josephus felt compelled to write about Him.
Although I have University Degrees in Religion, Humanities, Philosophy, and Chemistry. I read and write Greek, Hebrew, and Latin...this kind of argument is just basic "common sense". If you put yourself in the place and time frame when historical events happened your understanding about them will increase greatly.
Are we clear?
When it comes to the supposed authority of the Bible I take these three grains of salt: 1.) History was written by the winners; 2.) It's what was LEFT OUT of the Bible that reveals the context of what was left in; and 3.) Be wise of the things we do not know.
Anyone not privy to the inner workings of the community of theologians, would be surprised what they are exercising criticism upon.
Many commentaries written today give the impression that their authors love their texts, but there are many more that are quite overtly hostile to Scripture. One might wonder why bother, but part of the reason: they know the Bible has been very influential in Western Culture, so they feel they must expose it, for their own fame or financial benefit.
This may be why there's precious little taught today on the ghastliness of sin, and the nauseating disgust, loathing and revulsion this causes the Deity. People don't know this, as Bible criticism has put God at a distance, you would think that, not only is God unknowable, but that He is completely devoid or emotions...yes, emotions.
SIN isn't merely an offense to His honor, it is nothing less than a catastrophic assault on his feelings personally as the Creator God.
-- Robert Heinlein
"My wife and I have written an easy-to-remember poem for our children, 'No doors, no drawers, no chairs, no stairs.' I came up with this because I have found that these are the four most dangerous things to a child. Ninety percent of the time, when one of my children is injured, it's because they were playing with or on one of these things.
"When they get hurt playing on the stairs, am I personally offended? Of course not, because it's not about me. The pain in my heart is born out of a sincere, selfless love for my children. I hate what stairs do to kids when they fall down them. This is God's heart when it comes to your sin."--Darin Hufford, "The Misunderstood God", Chapter 9: "The Needy God?"