I try to approach religion following the maxim attributed to George Box about science:
Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.Our theologies and metaphors in Scripture are only models and not the thing itself. Or as Paul puts it, "For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (1 Cor. 13:12)
With that in mind, there is much about a more literal interpretation of sacrifice and substitutionary atonement that I find uncomfortable and not in keeping with Jesus' actual teaching. It implies that God is a petty and unforgiving legalist and that God's main relationship with humanity involves a broken contract where all our lives are forfeit and can not be waived without a, "pound of flesh", in terms that must be paid for with a death. This model portrays a remorseless, unrelenting God tied to a legal system he or she is unable or unwilling to forego. This is in complete contrast to the God that Jesus characterized as primarily loving, compassionate, and forgiving. This is not the king in Jesus' parables that forgives all his servant's debt, or the landowner who pays the workers who only put in a few hours the same as those who had worked all day.
Jesus did not come to change the mind of God about humanity; Jesus came to change the mind of humanity about God.
Franciscan saying
In the article from the Franciscan Centre for Action and Contemplation linked below, Richard Rohr points out how the Franciscan Christian Tradition has for one, "never believed that 'blood atonement' was required for God to love us." The substitutionary atonement “theory” (and that’s all it is) seems to imply that the Eternal Christ’s epiphany in Jesus is a mere afterthought when the first plan did not work out. (Richard Rohr)https://cac.org/incarnation-instead-of-atonement-2016-02-12/
In the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke, Jesus dismissed the notion of disaster and calamity as punishment from God.
Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! ... 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no!”
Ritual killing was also tied into the Hebrews' model for their relationship with God as being a covenant of the type that some neighboring nations had with their king, or which potentially hostile parties of the time created to keep the peace and form a basis for cooperation. These contracts usually had a literal, "cross my heart and hope to die", aspect. Animals were usually killed as part of the swearing ceremony in order to symbolize that breach of the contract would result in violence and death similar to what was being inflicted on the animals.
After Israel established itself as a nation and built a Temple for their God, animal sacrifice started happening on an industrial scale in a way meant to enrich and boost the theocracy of the Temple establishment. It became a monopoly on a transactional relationship between the people of Israel and God.
As part of the renewal of the Covenant with Moses, the Law had been introduced as a concession because the people were unable to bear the direct presence of God in order to follow his ways in spirit. As part of this renewed contract, with the Law as the terms and conditions, a penalty mechanism was given. If someone breached the contract by breaking the law, all could be made right by making an animal sacrifice payment as a substitute for one's own life. The penalty for breaking some laws was the death of a pigeon or dove, while other laws required larger animals like sheep. This was big profit for those connected with the Temple business. Part of Jesus' cleansing of the Temple was a response to the exploitation of the rural poor where they were forced to purchase animals at the Temple rather than bring their own.
As part of the renewal of the Covenant with Moses, the Law had been introduced as a concession because the people were unable to bear the direct presence of God in order to follow his ways in spirit. As part of this renewed contract, with the Law as the terms and conditions, a penalty mechanism was given. If someone breached the contract by breaking the law, all could be made right by making an animal sacrifice payment as a substitute for one's own life. The penalty for breaking some laws was the death of a pigeon or dove, while other laws required larger animals like sheep. This was big profit for those connected with the Temple business. Part of Jesus' cleansing of the Temple was a response to the exploitation of the rural poor where they were forced to purchase animals at the Temple rather than bring their own.
The law in Temple Judaism was pretty clear and was a finite list, making the "sin" requiring sacrifice pretty specific. Early Christian writers, however, broadened the definition to make it pervasive and non-specific. We were all now culpable for original sin and were all universally sinners. Basing their ideas on Paul's statement that, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", the concept of mankind as universal sinners and Jesus' death as payment in liue of punishment in hell, gave meaning and importance to Jesus' execution. The defeat and humiliating torture and death of their religion's founder needed to be justified in heroic terms. The worse and more horrific the punishment borrowed from the Greek myths of Hades that Jesus needed to rescue us from, the more significance and honour in Jesus' death.
What are we to make of images of sacrifice and substitutionary atonement in the Gospels. Why was Jesus identified as, "the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world"? I think we have to begin with recognizing that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi and wisdom teacher and like many of that tradition he used existing stories and myths that his listeners knew and gave them his own twist in order to illustrate a point or different perspective. This does not mean that he endorsed the truth or factuality of the original stories himself. He used stories that included the Egyptian and Greek myths of an afterlife. He also told what we believe were original stories and parables where he turned the outcome expected by his listeners upside down. It makes sense that the Gospel writers would use the same techniques in their stories about Jesus himself. They told the stories weaving in the ideas about sacrifice and atonement that their audience knew, and like Jesus, they turned those ideas upside down and replaced the expected with the unexpected.
One also needs to put the writings of the Gospels in context of the history of the time. The Gospels were written right after the destruction of the temple while Judaism was struggling with how to remain faithful to the Covenant when the Temple practices of sacrifice were no longer possible. Many streams of Judaism were vying as having the legitimate successor to those practices.
A major portion of Temple Judaism revolved around an ethos of ritual purity and holiness. The fledgling sect of the Way of Jesus was somewhat suspect in this regard. This group favoured the inclusion of uncircumcised gentiles and women, and spurned dietary laws and other purity practices in favour of broader principles of justice and compassion. In order to counter this and to make Christianity a viable continuation of Judaism, they told the story of Jesus in a way that made both the rigid adherence to the purity laws and continual Temple sacrifice as no longer necessary. The death of Jesus became the story of a new Covenant with God with extraordinary steps that made the existing contract complete and fulfilled
So, what would a non-literalist interpretation of this look like? A non-literalist view recognizes anthropomorphic images of God as a sentient being as metaphor. The concept of "God" is how we express what we find as legitimate, true, and worthy. We who follow the Christian tradition, affirm Jesus' vision of God as primarily loving, compassionate, and generous. God is the portrayal of these abstract qualities in a human like form.
Let's look at the narrative of Covenant, atonement, sacrifice, and Jesus' death through that perspective. The story of Covenant tells us that humankind has a contract with God, with the qualities of love, compassion, generosity, justice, and forgiveness (to name a few). Where we are able to live by these qualities, we experience fullness of life, protection from harm, and unity. We try to craft rules and laws based on these qualities and impose them on our communities to dictate our behavior along these lines. However, we can not rely on these laws where these qualities have not been internalized to the point that they are the source of our actions. We constantly fall short of these qualities, and the result is "death" in contrast to "life" in the form of violence, cruelty, exploitation, alienation, disunity, un-forgiveness, greed, and many other negative results. These failures in meeting the requirements of our "contract with God" has natural consequences and requires great payment in order for humanity to fulfill our side of the contract and in order to regain the benefits that this contract promises. To counter our breach of contract sometimes requires great sacrifice.
This is where I see Jesus and his death as coming in. Jesus was a person who lived in a land that had been defeated and was occupied by a foreign empire that ruled and exploited the people through trade and taxation enforced through violence and military power. The ideology of Empire was that "might made right". The ones with power defined what was legitimate, what was of God, and their vision of God authorized and laundered their violence and greed by depicting their wealth and power as the rewards and affirmation of their god or gods.
Jesus comes on this scene spreading a subversive message that was the antithesis of the ideology of Empire. His vision of God was one where love, generosity, and compassion are what is legitimate and true. He taught that we should love others as we love ourselves, including our enemies, and do good to those who seek to harm us. He called out the religious authorities on their exploitation and exclusion of the poor and powerless. As a result, he was seen as a threat to their rule and the fragile relationship they held with their oppressors that allowed them to continue to hold power over the people. As such, he was sentenced to death. Even in the face of this, he held firm to his covenant with a God of peace and unbridled love, not resisting arrest and forbidding his followers to defend him with violence. He was willing to let his life be payment for the cruelty and self-interest of others, a sacrifice of love and peace over violence and hatred. By submitting to the violence of others instead of responding in kind, he showed us how to pay what is needed to bring the Covenant to fulfillment, and settle the balance by breaking the cycle of hate and violence. The "payment" of suffering violence without retaliation works to help erase the attitudes of violence and cruelty and heal the scars that grow more hate and bloodshed. "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends" (John 15:13)...unless it is to lay down one's life for the enemy who would take it, to spare them violence at your own hand or the hand of your tribe as Jesus did. This is the ultimate expression of radical love.
If we literalize the metaphors around Jesus death, we reduce the nature and extent of Jesus' sacrifice. How much of a self-sacrifice is it to lay down your life if you know that your death is only temporary? What even moderately decent person would not suffer Jesus' fate if it was the literal means of sparing much of humanity eternal punishment and pain? How is the offering costly if you know that as a result you will be rewarded with great power and authority?
We also belittle the nature of this offering if we try to glorify it by characterizing it as a display of great machismo, stoicism, and endurance. The Mel Gibsons of Christianity would have you believe that the more Jesus suffered, the more that it proves his love for you, and that it was a, "good death", worthy of a man's man. But, the Gospels do not portray it as marked by any special endurance or experience as compared to the many who were executed in this manner by the Roman authorities. Not to minimalize the experience of anyone killed by crucifixion, but Jesus did not even endure the level of torture of the two criminals he was hung beside. The Gospels relate the Roman crucifixion practice of breaking the legs of the person hanging on the cross so that all their weight was supported by their arms, leading to a slow agonizing death by suffocation. Jesus was spared this. When the Roman soldiers went to break his legs they found that he was already dead.
Jesus' experience on the cross was a demeaning and belittling spectacle. For a Jew, particularly a Rabbi, to be displayed in public naked, to be mocked and be held up as an object of ridicule, powerless and vulnerable among criminals, is the height of humiliation. This humiliation was endured as an expression of a love that would save the world by not being the source of more violence.
The narrative is that the sacrifice of Jesus spares those who believe in him from everlasting suffering and grants them eternal life in a new and fuller relationship with God. Seen metaphorically, the Way of Jesus, as exemplified and demonstrated by his death, and believed in and practiced by his followers, spares all of humanity much suffering. It brings life and healing into human relationships and brings humanity into a fuller communion with love, compassion, and generosity.
The Gospel stories portray Jesus as having been raised from the dead and seated at the right hand of God, the ultimate affirmation by the symbol of all that is legitimate. Jesus continues to live in the hearts and minds of his followers today and his spirit resides in all who choose radical love over violence and self-interest.
Jesus is Risen. He is Risen indeed!
What are we to make of images of sacrifice and substitutionary atonement in the Gospels. Why was Jesus identified as, "the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world"? I think we have to begin with recognizing that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi and wisdom teacher and like many of that tradition he used existing stories and myths that his listeners knew and gave them his own twist in order to illustrate a point or different perspective. This does not mean that he endorsed the truth or factuality of the original stories himself. He used stories that included the Egyptian and Greek myths of an afterlife. He also told what we believe were original stories and parables where he turned the outcome expected by his listeners upside down. It makes sense that the Gospel writers would use the same techniques in their stories about Jesus himself. They told the stories weaving in the ideas about sacrifice and atonement that their audience knew, and like Jesus, they turned those ideas upside down and replaced the expected with the unexpected.
One also needs to put the writings of the Gospels in context of the history of the time. The Gospels were written right after the destruction of the temple while Judaism was struggling with how to remain faithful to the Covenant when the Temple practices of sacrifice were no longer possible. Many streams of Judaism were vying as having the legitimate successor to those practices.
A major portion of Temple Judaism revolved around an ethos of ritual purity and holiness. The fledgling sect of the Way of Jesus was somewhat suspect in this regard. This group favoured the inclusion of uncircumcised gentiles and women, and spurned dietary laws and other purity practices in favour of broader principles of justice and compassion. In order to counter this and to make Christianity a viable continuation of Judaism, they told the story of Jesus in a way that made both the rigid adherence to the purity laws and continual Temple sacrifice as no longer necessary. The death of Jesus became the story of a new Covenant with God with extraordinary steps that made the existing contract complete and fulfilled
So, what would a non-literalist interpretation of this look like? A non-literalist view recognizes anthropomorphic images of God as a sentient being as metaphor. The concept of "God" is how we express what we find as legitimate, true, and worthy. We who follow the Christian tradition, affirm Jesus' vision of God as primarily loving, compassionate, and generous. God is the portrayal of these abstract qualities in a human like form.
Let's look at the narrative of Covenant, atonement, sacrifice, and Jesus' death through that perspective. The story of Covenant tells us that humankind has a contract with God, with the qualities of love, compassion, generosity, justice, and forgiveness (to name a few). Where we are able to live by these qualities, we experience fullness of life, protection from harm, and unity. We try to craft rules and laws based on these qualities and impose them on our communities to dictate our behavior along these lines. However, we can not rely on these laws where these qualities have not been internalized to the point that they are the source of our actions. We constantly fall short of these qualities, and the result is "death" in contrast to "life" in the form of violence, cruelty, exploitation, alienation, disunity, un-forgiveness, greed, and many other negative results. These failures in meeting the requirements of our "contract with God" has natural consequences and requires great payment in order for humanity to fulfill our side of the contract and in order to regain the benefits that this contract promises. To counter our breach of contract sometimes requires great sacrifice.
This is where I see Jesus and his death as coming in. Jesus was a person who lived in a land that had been defeated and was occupied by a foreign empire that ruled and exploited the people through trade and taxation enforced through violence and military power. The ideology of Empire was that "might made right". The ones with power defined what was legitimate, what was of God, and their vision of God authorized and laundered their violence and greed by depicting their wealth and power as the rewards and affirmation of their god or gods.
Jesus comes on this scene spreading a subversive message that was the antithesis of the ideology of Empire. His vision of God was one where love, generosity, and compassion are what is legitimate and true. He taught that we should love others as we love ourselves, including our enemies, and do good to those who seek to harm us. He called out the religious authorities on their exploitation and exclusion of the poor and powerless. As a result, he was seen as a threat to their rule and the fragile relationship they held with their oppressors that allowed them to continue to hold power over the people. As such, he was sentenced to death. Even in the face of this, he held firm to his covenant with a God of peace and unbridled love, not resisting arrest and forbidding his followers to defend him with violence. He was willing to let his life be payment for the cruelty and self-interest of others, a sacrifice of love and peace over violence and hatred. By submitting to the violence of others instead of responding in kind, he showed us how to pay what is needed to bring the Covenant to fulfillment, and settle the balance by breaking the cycle of hate and violence. The "payment" of suffering violence without retaliation works to help erase the attitudes of violence and cruelty and heal the scars that grow more hate and bloodshed. "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends" (John 15:13)...unless it is to lay down one's life for the enemy who would take it, to spare them violence at your own hand or the hand of your tribe as Jesus did. This is the ultimate expression of radical love.
____________________
"Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends"....unless it is to lay down one's life for the enemy who would take it, to spare them violence at your own hand or the hand of your tribe as Jesus did.
____________________
We also belittle the nature of this offering if we try to glorify it by characterizing it as a display of great machismo, stoicism, and endurance. The Mel Gibsons of Christianity would have you believe that the more Jesus suffered, the more that it proves his love for you, and that it was a, "good death", worthy of a man's man. But, the Gospels do not portray it as marked by any special endurance or experience as compared to the many who were executed in this manner by the Roman authorities. Not to minimalize the experience of anyone killed by crucifixion, but Jesus did not even endure the level of torture of the two criminals he was hung beside. The Gospels relate the Roman crucifixion practice of breaking the legs of the person hanging on the cross so that all their weight was supported by their arms, leading to a slow agonizing death by suffocation. Jesus was spared this. When the Roman soldiers went to break his legs they found that he was already dead.
Jesus' experience on the cross was a demeaning and belittling spectacle. For a Jew, particularly a Rabbi, to be displayed in public naked, to be mocked and be held up as an object of ridicule, powerless and vulnerable among criminals, is the height of humiliation. This humiliation was endured as an expression of a love that would save the world by not being the source of more violence.
The narrative is that the sacrifice of Jesus spares those who believe in him from everlasting suffering and grants them eternal life in a new and fuller relationship with God. Seen metaphorically, the Way of Jesus, as exemplified and demonstrated by his death, and believed in and practiced by his followers, spares all of humanity much suffering. It brings life and healing into human relationships and brings humanity into a fuller communion with love, compassion, and generosity.
The Gospel stories portray Jesus as having been raised from the dead and seated at the right hand of God, the ultimate affirmation by the symbol of all that is legitimate. Jesus continues to live in the hearts and minds of his followers today and his spirit resides in all who choose radical love over violence and self-interest.
Jesus is Risen. He is Risen indeed!
No comments:
Post a Comment