An understanding of Christ's death (bear with the length)
Hhmm, let let me try to say with without completely ostricizing myself from the Christian faith. Okay first off, I think His death was MEANT TO change humankind's view of grace (I personally don't think this has really manifest itself in Christiandom, much less a widespread idea-- just look at the amount of 'Christians' who approve of the death penalty for an easy example).
Secondly, when Jesus says, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." I believe the blood and forgiveness he's talking about is in regard to the Jewish/ Roman community that he knows are going to brutally kill him. Jesus is forgiving them by accepting the consquences of thier sin. I suppose he could be talking about the 'many' as in all those who have contributed to this violent way of thinking throughout the ages. But what I don't think this is is a reference to all humanity that is to come, which would mean us.
This is something I wrote to Thomas last semester and it details my understanding of atonement. (I've roughly tweeked it a bit, but it pretty much says what I still think).
Over the past couple of years I've been trying to come to a conclusion as to what Christ's death is all about. I've long rejected the notion of a payment of any kind simply because an ultimately graceful God would not demand any type of payment in order to forgive someone of their sins. Instead, the only requisite for forgiveness is regret and repentance, on behalf of the sinner. In other words, the only necessity is for the sinner to acknowledge God's forgiveness; an ever-present forgiveness, which is already there but is not made complete until the forgiveness is acknowledged and accepted.
I have been raised in the church since birth. My father is a pastor. And every Sunday I go to church, no matter where that church is or what denomination it is, and a preassumed concept is that of the atonement in which Christ came down and somehow reestablished a relationship between God and humanity through his death i.e. humanity has received salvation through Christ, who served as a sacrifice, and his blood somehow purifies us in a
'Jewish-sacrificial-system' sense. Over time I have come to realize this traditional (and still prevalent) understanding however, is deeply flawed.
I recently attempted an informal articulation of my thoughts on how Christ's death serves as the key to humanities understanding of atonement. I wrote the following:
The crucifixion is indeed the finalizing act of atonement for Jesus (reestablishing and exemplifying a completely flawless, holy relationship between God and man). And let me stress what I mean when I say FINALIZING. The death of Christ can ONLY hold any significance when made in light of the life of Christ, for without the life the death is just another Roman crucifixion. This being said, the two-- the life and death-- are inseparable. Throughout the Gospels, each act of Jesus' life-- each act made in response to God and displaying examples of God's love-- is part of a progressive atonement. It is setting the example of how humans must live if he or she is to bring themself in the closest possible relation to God.
The reason why the death is the finalizing act of atonement is because it is part of the continuing example of how one is to live in the complete presence of God. With the circumstances Jesus found himself in he had the choice to maintain his relationship with God, which meant he could NOT use violence as a means to save himself, nor as a means to achieve power, control, or service to the innocent. As result of the prohibition Christ has the options to either run or to subject himself to suffering. This subjection to suffering is the climax of his life. His suffering is the ultimate display of both responsive forgiveness and complete injustice; it was the true embodiement of what it means to love your enemey and those who persecute you, by which I mean practicing a love that accepts the consequences of the enemies sin, which, in this case, meant accepting death.
Through his death he exposes the sinfulness of humankind's lives and our institutionalized and personal practices that are embedded in ways contrary to God's love. His death gives humanity the opportunity to acknowledge the areas of life we did not know were sinful but most definitely are. This acknowledgement is a bitter pill and turns the self-deception we've inadvertently engrained in our lives inside out. His love (and death) gave our sinfulness nowhere to run or create excuse ourselves for. The response to this love was simple: maintain self-deception by disposing of the exploiter, i.e. kill the messenger. Ironically, our killing him completely exposed our sinful ways and gave us knowledge of our sinfulness, thereby giving us the ability and know-how to repent, to live as Christ, and to fully reunite with God. (Although this knowledge has been heavily supressed since the death of the early church).
Now concerning the speech of sacrifice. I find it very peculiar that Christians typically make reference to the sacrifice of Jesus in contrast with the sacrificial practices of the Jews of the past. In their past the Jews would make sacrifices to atone for their sins. The point is: they were conscious of their separated state. What Jewish history proved was that no matter what sacrifices they made they still fell right back into the same sinful behaviors and lifestyles. Obviously the system is either inadequate, ineffective or both. Ultimately, no progress toward a holy life was made. I think this is largely due to the fact that they were placing their sins on something outside themselves, using the sacrifice as a substitute. The reason this practice never truly atoned was because they demanded innocent blood be substituted in place of their sin. What they failed to realize is that God's grace makes no demands besides repentance. Quite in fact, I believe, as anthropologist turned theologian Renea Girald does in his 'scapegoat theory, that their demand of the shedding of innocent blood was a secular idea and practice adopted by God's people. It sure as hell doesn't separate their God from any of the other secular god's that demand sacrifices. I also find it odd-- and endlessly aggravating-- that Christ is attributed to a Jewish sacrifice even though his death was in NO WAY an act of repentance and was indeed, quite the opposite: a horrible act of sin.
What I'm trying to say is that Jesus' sacrifice was not the Jewish idea of one. God does not demand innocent blood be shed with the intention of atoning for sins. God's grace is not restricted, for his grace is inseparable from his love. And to imply that his grace was restricted to innocent blood is to imply that his grace is a temporal thing, which, thereby implies that his love is also a temporal thing, which, thereby implies that God himself is a temporal thing because 'God is Love.' God's means never require sin as a prerequisite necessity to achieve an end, for this would contradict God's nature. The crucifixion was pure murder and it broke God's heart to see how far humanity, his own Hebrew people in particular, had rejected him (although I think prophecy points out that God had a damn good idea that any Messiah sent would have been murdered, but hey, guessing that humans will murder good revolutionary people is like guessing a mime isn't going to talk.)
Atonement is never payable through sin. Instead, atonement became achievable and acknowledgeable through the RESULT of sin (God making the best out of the worst). Without sin there would be no need for atonement itself, so the best place to realize our sinfulness is through our sinful actions.
All of this is not to say that Christ does not sacrifice his life so that we may be redeemed. When I say this I mean that Jesus sacrifices his life so that we may see the full extent and perversion of our sinful lives. He is not appeasing God because God is entirely graceful and needs no appeasement. Moreover, he's showing the non-violence love demands.
Christ sacrificing his life exposes our use of violence, even for self-preservation, as evil because of the very reason that he refuses to use violence and forced control, and is willing to die because of that refusal. Through this refusal he is also refusing to forsake his connection to God. For had he used violence he'd have left the sustaining, connecting love of God. I teeter on the thought that the reason this is the final act of Christ is because the notion of nonviolence is the most radical and difficult to comprehend as a requirement to remain in unblemished connection with God; especially in a world that demands violence as a sustaining necessity in everything from politics, to power, and even to atonement. We live in a world that cannot make sense of itself outside of violence.
Christ's sacrifice does not mean that humanity has received atonement for their sinful ways. It means we now have the perfect, complete example of how we are to live our lives if we seek to live in direct connection with God. The established institution of love that Jesus began (the Church) is part of the act of humanities atonement. But that atonement will not be complete until the love ethic of Christ constitutes all actions and decision of the Church. Furthermore, that that same love manifest itself in the member of the body of the Church, which is likened to the collective body of Christ.
I also feel that when Christians talk about humanity as being atoned and having a new, ideal connection with God after Christ’s death and resurrection they aren't saying very much for God if humanity itself, save very few exceptions, continues to resemble a sinful, self-destructive virus unto itself and the earth. I mean, if we were atoned in the popular sense of the word, doesn't it seem logical we would see postitive effects this new connection with God has on humankind as a whole? I suppose I may be blind, but when the 'Christian' murdered itself in the 20th century it sure as hell didn't say much for their faith.
I think popular Christianity persistently, promotes a violent God of limited grace and love, and assume that humankind is indeed in the ideal connection with God because of the crucifixion. And to this I sadly shake my head.
Lastly, I believe the Christus Victor metaphor (Christ the conqueror of the powers of sin, death and hell) perfectly applies to Christ and is true. That's what the resurrection is all about. Jesus conquered those things and now humankind has a proper idea of how it must live in relation to both God and each other if they to wish to be Victors as (and in) Christ. But him conquering those things does not mean we don't have to conquer them too, or that it makes up for all humanities sins that occured and will occur.
Is that an alright articulation of my understanding Becky?
-comments/ criticism welcomed
--Timothy
Secondly, when Jesus says, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." I believe the blood and forgiveness he's talking about is in regard to the Jewish/ Roman community that he knows are going to brutally kill him. Jesus is forgiving them by accepting the consquences of thier sin. I suppose he could be talking about the 'many' as in all those who have contributed to this violent way of thinking throughout the ages. But what I don't think this is is a reference to all humanity that is to come, which would mean us.
This is something I wrote to Thomas last semester and it details my understanding of atonement. (I've roughly tweeked it a bit, but it pretty much says what I still think).
Over the past couple of years I've been trying to come to a conclusion as to what Christ's death is all about. I've long rejected the notion of a payment of any kind simply because an ultimately graceful God would not demand any type of payment in order to forgive someone of their sins. Instead, the only requisite for forgiveness is regret and repentance, on behalf of the sinner. In other words, the only necessity is for the sinner to acknowledge God's forgiveness; an ever-present forgiveness, which is already there but is not made complete until the forgiveness is acknowledged and accepted.
I have been raised in the church since birth. My father is a pastor. And every Sunday I go to church, no matter where that church is or what denomination it is, and a preassumed concept is that of the atonement in which Christ came down and somehow reestablished a relationship between God and humanity through his death i.e. humanity has received salvation through Christ, who served as a sacrifice, and his blood somehow purifies us in a
'Jewish-sacrificial-system' sense. Over time I have come to realize this traditional (and still prevalent) understanding however, is deeply flawed.
I recently attempted an informal articulation of my thoughts on how Christ's death serves as the key to humanities understanding of atonement. I wrote the following:
The crucifixion is indeed the finalizing act of atonement for Jesus (reestablishing and exemplifying a completely flawless, holy relationship between God and man). And let me stress what I mean when I say FINALIZING. The death of Christ can ONLY hold any significance when made in light of the life of Christ, for without the life the death is just another Roman crucifixion. This being said, the two-- the life and death-- are inseparable. Throughout the Gospels, each act of Jesus' life-- each act made in response to God and displaying examples of God's love-- is part of a progressive atonement. It is setting the example of how humans must live if he or she is to bring themself in the closest possible relation to God.
The reason why the death is the finalizing act of atonement is because it is part of the continuing example of how one is to live in the complete presence of God. With the circumstances Jesus found himself in he had the choice to maintain his relationship with God, which meant he could NOT use violence as a means to save himself, nor as a means to achieve power, control, or service to the innocent. As result of the prohibition Christ has the options to either run or to subject himself to suffering. This subjection to suffering is the climax of his life. His suffering is the ultimate display of both responsive forgiveness and complete injustice; it was the true embodiement of what it means to love your enemey and those who persecute you, by which I mean practicing a love that accepts the consequences of the enemies sin, which, in this case, meant accepting death.
Through his death he exposes the sinfulness of humankind's lives and our institutionalized and personal practices that are embedded in ways contrary to God's love. His death gives humanity the opportunity to acknowledge the areas of life we did not know were sinful but most definitely are. This acknowledgement is a bitter pill and turns the self-deception we've inadvertently engrained in our lives inside out. His love (and death) gave our sinfulness nowhere to run or create excuse ourselves for. The response to this love was simple: maintain self-deception by disposing of the exploiter, i.e. kill the messenger. Ironically, our killing him completely exposed our sinful ways and gave us knowledge of our sinfulness, thereby giving us the ability and know-how to repent, to live as Christ, and to fully reunite with God. (Although this knowledge has been heavily supressed since the death of the early church).
Now concerning the speech of sacrifice. I find it very peculiar that Christians typically make reference to the sacrifice of Jesus in contrast with the sacrificial practices of the Jews of the past. In their past the Jews would make sacrifices to atone for their sins. The point is: they were conscious of their separated state. What Jewish history proved was that no matter what sacrifices they made they still fell right back into the same sinful behaviors and lifestyles. Obviously the system is either inadequate, ineffective or both. Ultimately, no progress toward a holy life was made. I think this is largely due to the fact that they were placing their sins on something outside themselves, using the sacrifice as a substitute. The reason this practice never truly atoned was because they demanded innocent blood be substituted in place of their sin. What they failed to realize is that God's grace makes no demands besides repentance. Quite in fact, I believe, as anthropologist turned theologian Renea Girald does in his 'scapegoat theory, that their demand of the shedding of innocent blood was a secular idea and practice adopted by God's people. It sure as hell doesn't separate their God from any of the other secular god's that demand sacrifices. I also find it odd-- and endlessly aggravating-- that Christ is attributed to a Jewish sacrifice even though his death was in NO WAY an act of repentance and was indeed, quite the opposite: a horrible act of sin.
What I'm trying to say is that Jesus' sacrifice was not the Jewish idea of one. God does not demand innocent blood be shed with the intention of atoning for sins. God's grace is not restricted, for his grace is inseparable from his love. And to imply that his grace was restricted to innocent blood is to imply that his grace is a temporal thing, which, thereby implies that his love is also a temporal thing, which, thereby implies that God himself is a temporal thing because 'God is Love.' God's means never require sin as a prerequisite necessity to achieve an end, for this would contradict God's nature. The crucifixion was pure murder and it broke God's heart to see how far humanity, his own Hebrew people in particular, had rejected him (although I think prophecy points out that God had a damn good idea that any Messiah sent would have been murdered, but hey, guessing that humans will murder good revolutionary people is like guessing a mime isn't going to talk.)
Atonement is never payable through sin. Instead, atonement became achievable and acknowledgeable through the RESULT of sin (God making the best out of the worst). Without sin there would be no need for atonement itself, so the best place to realize our sinfulness is through our sinful actions.
All of this is not to say that Christ does not sacrifice his life so that we may be redeemed. When I say this I mean that Jesus sacrifices his life so that we may see the full extent and perversion of our sinful lives. He is not appeasing God because God is entirely graceful and needs no appeasement. Moreover, he's showing the non-violence love demands.
Christ sacrificing his life exposes our use of violence, even for self-preservation, as evil because of the very reason that he refuses to use violence and forced control, and is willing to die because of that refusal. Through this refusal he is also refusing to forsake his connection to God. For had he used violence he'd have left the sustaining, connecting love of God. I teeter on the thought that the reason this is the final act of Christ is because the notion of nonviolence is the most radical and difficult to comprehend as a requirement to remain in unblemished connection with God; especially in a world that demands violence as a sustaining necessity in everything from politics, to power, and even to atonement. We live in a world that cannot make sense of itself outside of violence.
Christ's sacrifice does not mean that humanity has received atonement for their sinful ways. It means we now have the perfect, complete example of how we are to live our lives if we seek to live in direct connection with God. The established institution of love that Jesus began (the Church) is part of the act of humanities atonement. But that atonement will not be complete until the love ethic of Christ constitutes all actions and decision of the Church. Furthermore, that that same love manifest itself in the member of the body of the Church, which is likened to the collective body of Christ.
I also feel that when Christians talk about humanity as being atoned and having a new, ideal connection with God after Christ’s death and resurrection they aren't saying very much for God if humanity itself, save very few exceptions, continues to resemble a sinful, self-destructive virus unto itself and the earth. I mean, if we were atoned in the popular sense of the word, doesn't it seem logical we would see postitive effects this new connection with God has on humankind as a whole? I suppose I may be blind, but when the 'Christian' murdered itself in the 20th century it sure as hell didn't say much for their faith.
I think popular Christianity persistently, promotes a violent God of limited grace and love, and assume that humankind is indeed in the ideal connection with God because of the crucifixion. And to this I sadly shake my head.
Lastly, I believe the Christus Victor metaphor (Christ the conqueror of the powers of sin, death and hell) perfectly applies to Christ and is true. That's what the resurrection is all about. Jesus conquered those things and now humankind has a proper idea of how it must live in relation to both God and each other if they to wish to be Victors as (and in) Christ. But him conquering those things does not mean we don't have to conquer them too, or that it makes up for all humanities sins that occured and will occur.
Is that an alright articulation of my understanding Becky?
-comments/ criticism welcomed
--Timothy
posted by Timothy Sommer at 8:34 AM
14 Comments:
I will respond to this post by Tim soon, but -
RYLAND: The article is in the Wesleyan Theological Journal, Spring 2001. Also look at "Hellfire and Damnation: Four Ancient and Modern Views" by George Hunsinger, at
http://www.jesusradicals.com/library/hunsinger.php
Peace~Thomas
Hey Timothy, thanks for the thorough response! I'm probably going to have read it over several times... :) Anyway, I'm chewing all this over in thought, I'll probably post again later when I can put additional questions and thoughts to words...
I thought that Hunsinger article was outstanding, by the way. That last perspective, the one he calls "Reverent Agnosticism", comes as close as anything I've ever read/heard to where I am right now in my own understanding of hell, salvation, etc. I guess if I'm a heretic, I'm not the only one...
Keep this stuff coming!
tim....
i'm so happy you've said this, and it's nice to know that this thought isn't just always on the margins or thought of as heresy. have you ever talked these things through with your father or other people within the church? the odd thing is that i've seen these thoughts being excitedly accepted by so-called 'atheists' and shunned by so-called 'christians'. i'd love to talk with 'church folks' about this, but am very nervous. these subjects are fine within theology class, but you take it to everyday persons and, as becky from above says, called a heretic. but, like her, i guess i'm okay with 'not being the only one.'
be peace, brother
curtis
Totally unrelated to this discussion (although I am really enjoying it... it is helpful to me as we are in the section on Eschatology in theology class)...
I just wanted to say to Tim - welcome back! Are you on campus? Maybe I'll see you around.
Tim-
good stuff. good to read your radicalness again. one question though: if the Christus Victor metaphor is the most appropriate (and I am most definatly not disagreeing), for atonement is a conquering of sin and death, wouldn't christ would have had to have died in order to be resurrected? For if the resurrection is necessary to conquer death, would not the act of the crucifixion be necessary as well?
Marcus,
Is crucifixtion the only way one can die? Not the last time I checked. Is it not possible that he could have died another way-- natural causes included-- and have been resurrected all the same? Even though I consinder this may have been a possibility, Jesus not being killed was probably as likely as someone jumping out of an airplane and landing on the ground without a scratch. If God is a perfect predicter, which I believe him to be, then I think He would have bet a good share of the heavens that Jesus would be killed. History shows us again and again that paramount, revelutoinaries of love are ALMOST ALWAYS murdered by their society.
Okay, Timothy, I've got two more questions for you in response to your post (sorry it took me forever!). First, what are your thoughts on the Jewish sacrificial system? What do you believe its origins were? If it was from God, what did it mean, and how would it fit with the view that the only requisite for forgiveness is regret and repentance (rather than payment)? Second...how do you view the New Testament apart from the gospels? For me, it seems hard to get away from the understanding of Christ's death as atoning...thinking of verses such as I John 2:2, for example. How would I move away from the more traditional understanding of Christ's death without dismissing or contradicting what seems to clearly point to that elsewhere in scripture? This is where I always get stuck...is it really possible for me to take much of a different view and still trust scripture as being God's Word and reliable and all that? Or, if I were to look as scripture as fallible like everything else, how do I know how to identify what's error and what's truth...what do I stand on to decide what is true about God and me and life and everything? Can I trust myself to reach the right answer? Really, even going with the standard 'the Bible is inerrant and perfect', I'm still stuck with the same questions in understanding what is true, and what it means. Okay...two questions turned into about 16...thoughts? answers? feedback?
I guess my first remark must be I don't believe the Bible is inerrant and perfect. Seeing that so many criticisms, disagreements and ambiguities arise from it, it's quite obvious it's far from perfect-- which isn't to say that it's not the best text we have. I think many of the seperate books in the Biblical collection are the best texts humanity has.
As for contradictions: this is one of the main criticisms of the Bible. It contradicts itself on a consistent basis- especially when Jesus enters the picture and tells everyone he's God. Some people don't seem to have a problem with contradiction, but I do; which is why I'm forced to seek interpretations (such as the one I posted) of the alternative ways of understanding what Truth about God the Bible really holds.
I believe in the character of Jesus that the gospel narratives portray to be God incarnate, which subsiquently, means I believe him to be love incarnate. Do I think the gospel writers (or other NT writers like Paul) fully understood who they were writing about or what Jesus was doing? No. They weren't theororists, philosophers or metaphysicians. They were just relaying there experiences as a follower of Jesus. But in doing so I think they captured his essence and character enough to present a person with a nature and lifestyle of love that the world had never seen before.
I, with my whole heart, trust some parts of scripture to be God's Word, and other parts of scripture to be Man's Word. Is it sometimes difficult to make these distinctions? Yes. Is it necessary for me to make these distinctions and still be true what I believe about Jesus? Yes.
As for reaching the 'right answer,' I don't particularly trust myself, which is why I draw ideas and interpretations from others.
I suppose this is about 16 non-answers to your questions.
While you read this, YOU start to BECOME aware of your surroundings, CERTIAN things that you were not aware of such as the temperature of the room, and sounds may make YOU realize you WANT a real college degree.
Call this number now, (413) 208-3069
Get an unexplained feeling of joy, Make it last longer by getting your COLLEGE DEGREE. Just as sure as the sun is coming up tomorrow, these College Degree's come complete with transcripts, and are VERIFIABLE.
You know THAT Corporate America takes advantage of loopholes in the system. ITS now YOUR turn to take advantage of this specific opportunity, Take a second, Get a BETTER FEELING of joy and a better future BY CALLING this number 24 hours a day.
(413) 208-3069
corporate america's waiting guys...
You know THAT Corporate America takes advantage of loopholes in the system. ITS now YOUR turn to take advantage of this specific opportunity, Take a second, Get a BETTER FEELING of joy and a better future BY CALLING this number 24 hours a day.
haha
be peace,
curtis
i may be a dunce (and rather out of mind at the moment) but WTF is benammons talking about?
--Timothy
Ok... sorry for my absence. I will write much more soon, but wanted to contribute a bit right now.
The truth is, the New testament does not give any theories of atonement. All there are are several "models" of atonement: Christus Victor, Sacrificial, Substitution, Moral Influence, etc. This does not make the NT incoherent, but makes it beautiful, in the same way that 4 gospels is a great expression of how inadequate mere human accounts are of the good news. There is more going on than human logic. No one of the gospels, and no single portrayel of atonement has a monopoly on truth, and I do NOT think they contradict each other, but are each faulty human attempts to explain a mysterious and readical story..
Jesus (probably) willed his crucifixion. he may have even been destined to this death. This does not neccesitate violence in the Godhead. Anselm, the father of "substitution" theory atonement did not say that God the Father has to pour out violence and wrath on somebody, so he did it to Jesus. No. Jesus was a substitute, because he did what no one else could do. No one else could be faithful like he was. No one else could give the Spirit. No one esle could be as sacrificial as he was. No one else could be the New Adam, so he was. In that sense, he was a substitute. He did not give payment. He was faithful, and through his faithfullness we can recieve grace. HE DID SOMETHING NO ONE ELSE COULD DO. The NT narrative make it clear that Jesus came to give the Spirit. The Orthodox teach that jesus "gave up the ghost" (died), to, among other things, give us the Holy Ghost.
I will write more on this soon..esp. on the Jewish sacrificial system. It is not About payment either. YOU ARE RIGHT THOUGH ABOUT THE LIFE AND DEATH OF CHRIST BEING CONNECTED THOUGH. The incarnation is also connetced. The incarnation is (possibly) the most radical part of it. That divinity and sinful humanflesh would unite - this is reconciliation. more to come...
Peace~Thomas
yeah, thomas... bring some more.
curtis
Thomas, you said you didn't think the atonement understandings of the NT narratives contradict each other, and I agree with you %100. I'm just saying I disagree with the authors (plural) understandings of atonement and the way and langauage they use to describe Christ's atoning action. As you said, they are faulty attempts at explaining a mysterious and radical God.
---Timothy
Post a Comment
<< Home