The Scandal of the Cross (4)

The meager paragraphs that follow are hardly sufficient to address the issues at hand. This is more of a “for your information” kind of a post, listing what is out there, and giving us a starting point from which to dialog. Most of you can feel free to read this, say “Oh that’s nice” and move on. It is, however, what I have been musing on lately and so it goes on this blog. If you have the time or inclination, I would love to discuss just how terribly important all of this is, but I doubt that you do. I certainly don’t seem to, as is evident by the frequencies of the posts here lately.

In the last post on the scandal of the cross, we looked at the variety of biblical words and images used to describe what Christ did on the cross. In this post I want to look at the variety of theological motifs available to the church. These motifs have been developed to answer some basic questions.

Why did Christ have to die?

Why did he have to die on a cross?

How does Christ death on a cross save us?

What happened on the cross, spiritually and theologically?

God forgave sins before Christ died. Why then was Christ death necessary? Why doesn’t an all powerful God simply forgive people, without any of this death nonsense?

For the Christian, that the cross saves is not in doubt. But questions about how and why, may still remain, particularly if one chooses to question the Sunday School answers she was given as a child. The answers that follow are theological in nature, not apologetic. Meaning that they are meant to help Christians understand the nuances of what they believe, not convince unbelievers of the truths contained within. What follows is foundational, and academic. It might seem dry, but these are the historical building blocks from which pastors, missionaries and others work. This post gives you access to a few short descriptions, so that we can work from the same sheet of music.

Below I am only going to give you some titles and short descriptions of different perspectives. Its up to you to look into these in-depth if you are so inclined.

Cristus Victor as Recapitulation.
Iraneaus (130 - 202) was one of the first to put forward a theological understanding of the death of Christ. From his perspective, Jesus conquers the devil on the cross, largely by tricking him. As a prize he wins back the rights to humanity. The devil thinks he is defeating Christ by killing him, but in actuality, because the devil does not know the rules, he is sealing his own fate.

Christus Victor as Ransom
Gregory of Nyssa (335-394) taught that Jesus offered himself as ransom for humanity. He gave himself up to the devil, but the goodness of Christ was too much, and the devil lost his grasp, losing his prize as well as his prisoners.

According to both of these perspectives Christ conquers the Devil.

Satisfaction Model.
Created by Anselm (1033-1109) during the middle ages, this model relied heavily on Medieval imagery. Anselm rejected any notion of the devil being owed anything. Rather, Christ offers himself as satisfaction to God for the debt that sinful humanity owed to God.

This model is very similar to penal substitution models that developed later, but due to the different settings they developed in, are in fact, very different. The satisfaction model draws on the obligations that people in various positions owed to each other during the middle ages. For instance, surfs had obligations to the Lord of the manner, and he in turn had obligations both to his surfs to provide protection, and to a king above him, providing the required payments of various goods. Likewise, Jesus satisfies the debt we owe to God, by dying on the cross.

In contrast, the penal substitution model, draws on a system of courts and justice, different than a system of debt and obligation common in the middle ages.

Moral Influence Model
Abelard (1049-1142) was the first to bring this perspective to bear. He first rejects all other notions as described above. He then simply states that it was Christ love for humanity that brought him to earth. Offering us an example of how we ought to live. That he was killed was simply an outgrowth of this, and in his death also he showed us how to behave. In his life and death Jesus drew humankind unto himself by his selfless example, causing us to repent and love God.

Penal Substitution Model
Charles Hodge (1797 - 1878) was one of the first proponents of this model, the most common perspective taught today. It is basically very simple. God would like to live with us all happily ever after, but because of our sins, and because he is holy and just, he cannot. As a solution, God sends his son to earth to suffer the punishment we deserve. Because Jesus paid our penalty, God can now regard us as holy, and commune with us. Many of us have heard the story of the judge that pronounces one guilty of all their sins, but then says, “if you accept the payment that my son has offered” he will bear your guilt and you may go free.

The main difference between this model and the Satisfaction model is that in the latter, Jesus pays a debt we owe, but in the former, Jesus steps in to take the punishment we deserve.

In the coming final post on this topic, we will look at the implications for these models and the one’s found in the Bible detailed in the earlier post.

On Metaphor

Before we continue to examine the scandal of the cross I would like to take a brief look at the concept of metaphor and symbol, as it is important to understanding theological discourse.



This is not a boat

It is just a pile of 1’s and 0’s that most assuredly will not float. It is in a sense a metaphor or symbol for a boat, not an actual boat. Furthermore it is a number of other things all together: a picture, a photograph, in this case a piece of art, it could represent history, it is html code, and maybe a few other things as well. One thing it is not, is an actual floating boat.

So it is with theological language. The language, even the concepts are not the reality behind them. The word atonement, event the concept of atonement is not the same as what Jesus actually did on the cross, especially from his and/or God's perspective.

If we want to talk about boats its nice to have a picture of one, but its not the same as sailing. And like wise, when we need to talk about theology (and we most assuredly do need to talk about it) its nice to have word pictures and concepts to use, but it is not the same as the actual reality.

Secondly, boats change. A dugout canoe and an aircraft carrier, they both float in water, but are slightly different. Over the course of time, depending on the needs of the user, boats and metaphors change.

Thirdly, boats and metaphors are bound up in their time and place, and must be used or at least understood in light of their surrounding culture. No one wants to float an aircraft carrier down a river, and a navy man doesn’t want to go to war with a dugout canoe.

All of this comes into play when interpreting the Bible. We can’t just grab words and or metaphors out of the Bible without being cognizant of the authors surrounding culture and his intent. Additionally while we absolutely want to hold on to the original metaphors, we need to realize that, A, they must be translated, and B, they already have been translated, over and over again through two thousand years of church history. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, just something to recognize and be aware of. (though when done improperly it certainly is a bad thing.)

Additionally, we also bring our baggage to the table. Those of us who have grown up in the church have been raised with X metaphor, or Y metaphor for this or that. Those metaphor’s may have been appropriate to their original audience, (or not) and they may continue to be appropriate in this particular time and place, (or not). (Don’t read too much doubt into that last sentence, I’m just stating that either/or may be true) Consequently, we need to occasionally reexamine if the metaphors we are using, communicate to our audience A, what the original author wanted them to communicate, and B, what we want to communicate. Yes, A and B are often the same thing, but not necessarily. For instance, Paul may address women covering their heads, we may simply choose to only address modesty, or respect.

I say all of this simply to serve as background for the upcoming post on the scandal of the cross, but also for your own benefit in your own future endeavors in Biblical interpretation. I think it also illustrates that though the Bible may be infallible, interpreting it certainly is not.

Do you look at all of this a different way? Please tell me about it.

The Scandal of the Cross (3)

As we continue to examine the meaning of the death of Jesus on a cross, I would like to turn next to the word-images that appear in the New Testament narrative. What images did the authors of the Bible use, and what are the implications of those images?

The Biblical authors found it necessary to construct multiple ways of explaining the cross, ways which where bound up in their time and place. All I'll do here is list what those images are, and offer an all too brief word on each. If you are so inclined there is more than you will ever want to read about each one if you click on the link. If I have missed some images used by biblical authors to explain the cross of Christ, by all means let me know.

Redemption
This word gets at the heart of salvation. This doctrine not-so-briefly sums up our standing with God.

Sacrifice
This word gets at the nature and means of God's redemptive work on the cross.

Revelation
The link I have provided for this one is less helpful. Revelation as it applies to Jesus Christ gets at the idea that in Jesus we see most full the heart and reality of God the Father. In other words, Jesus revels God to humanity. Jesus' whole life does this, but nothing so vividly as his death. The death of Jesus illustrates or revels the love of God in a way nothing else can.

Reconciliation
This doctrine sums up what has been accomplished by the other three points. Most Christians are aware of their personal reconciliation with God, however what is taught less often, is the way and degree to which Christ death has the potential to reconcile all things, and in fact one day will, on that day when the lion will lie down with the lamb. To be specific, race relations, economic affairs and humanities relationship with its environment, God's creation, are just three areas that are in need of immense reconciliation. The death of Jesus makes these things possible, in part because of the example Christ displayed for us but also for other spiritual and theological reasons as well.

father, son and Holy Ghost

Tonight I danced with my son as we worshiped. I danced with my four-month old son Nicholas in my arms as he cooed along with the music.

Wow...

I don't know what to say...

I guess I'll just say this, love is amazing at so many levels.

You Damn Liberal

Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov said...

Wow, you damn liberal. I knew Fuller would mess you up.

Also, are you using a moral example theory of atonement here? Did Jesus die simply so we would all see his selfless act and be energized to be good people as well? This was Arius' view. Be careful not to slip into a works salvation you Catholic sympathizer.

Oh yeah, and see my comment on your last post and check out Irenaeus' recapitulation theory, it's my favorite.

One of my closest friends at seminary is named Greg. He left this comment on the previous post which to the uninformed looks downright rude. But in-fact it was made completely tong-in-cheek. Greg is himself a flaming Roman Catholic liberal, at least in some area's. I can say this because I know him, and because we have shared countless theological conversations. I know precisely the look on his face as he wrote this. As he wrote, he wore a sly mischievous grin, one which I miss very much. In this grin Greg communicates any number of things, but one of them is this: “I a roman catholic know what I think, and you a conservative (kind of) evangelical know what you think, yet in spite of our sometimes large differences we press on with a contagious kind of love. A love for theology, each other, and most of all Jesus Christ that allows us to be worlds apart but best of friends” (yes all of this is communicated in Greg’s grin.)

Looking back on our time together at Fuller. I think that one of the things that made this possible was our lack of desire to win a debate. We were both so committed to our positions that we would just sit around chatting, sometimes passionately, but never really debating, just talking, learning from each other, what the ins and outs of each others positions were. Ironically, in trying not to debate each other, we did in fact rub off on each other.

Interesting yet disconcerting is the fact that what we chatted about over beer and cigarettes, others have literally (and I mean that) killed over.

I responded to Greg's comment as follows:

Greg, I don't think any of this will be news to you, but I'll say it anyway. Jesus didn't die simply so that we would all see his selfless act and be energized to be good people as well, he DIED so that would all see his selfless act and be energized to be good people... and so much more. Yes there is a line of reasoning that would suggest that Jesus was just a good teacher and that his death sealed this teaching, catapulting them to the next level if you will, and that Peter and Paul then invented Christianity on the back of this "good mans deeds". What is different here is that I am saying not "yes, but" but rather "yes, and" The good teacher, (who was also the Son of God) sealed his teachings, our example, and did a great number of other things as well. These "other things" I believe can be grouped or described under three broad categories, anthropologically, kind of what the previous post was getting at, and theologically, which we do too narrowly, and spiritually. You and I both believe that on the cross, something amazing happened at a spiritual/supernatural level that mere theological discourse fails to get its arms around. What Jesus did on the cross fails comprehension at so many levels it should stop us in our tracks. Instead we summarize it in neat theological statements and package and sell it for only $9.99 on necklaces and bookmarks at the local book store.

The Scandal of the Cross (2)

On the cross, Jesus accomplished a number of things, a wide variety of things that we tend to boil down to a simple explanation. This is very unfortunate. By simplifying what Jesus did on the cross to a simple statement like, “Jesus died for my sins.” Or “Jesus’ blood covers my sins”, we do not do justice to the degree to which Jesus’ death turned the world upside down. What follows is just one of many other things that Jesus’ death accomplished.

The Roman world was based on patronage, people doing what was expected of them by others. Everyone had expectations. Slaves were indebted to their owners, sons to their fathers, the Elite to the Emperor, and the Emperor to the gods. Gifts and favors were given with an expectation of a return on the “investment”.

In contrast to this, Jesus set forth an alternative ethic, one in which we “die to ourselves take up our cross and follow him.” This ethic is found through out the gospels. For instance, we see the disciples fighting among themselves over who is the greatest. Jesus responds by saying that the last shall be first and the first shall be last. During the sermon on the mount, over and over he says, “you have herd it said, but I say unto you…” He invites the little children to come to him with out reservation, and shortly before he dies, he takes on the role of a lowly servant, washing his disciple’s feet. The teachings of Jesus have turned and are turning the world as we know it upside down.

Now none of these teachings constitutes something new for those of us who identify ourselves as Christians, but how far would these teachings have multiplied if Jesus had not died a horrible death on a cross? They would be lost. By making the ultimate sacrifice, Jesus set his other teachings and examples in concrete, causing them to be immovable objects. As Paul puts it “we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.”

To draw an analogy, the life and teachings of Jesus are like a demolition team setting up a building for demolition. If the effort of the demolition team over the course of weeks doesn’t result in a gigantic explosion, bringing an old building to the ground, their effort is for not. Similarly, if Jesus hadn’t died, his teachings and life would be like a demolition team setting the charge but not igniting the fuse. If Jesus hadn't died, would we even know his name?

His teachings have changed the world, and continue to change the world, but none of this would be true if he hadn’t died the way he did. If his teachings had endured, but he hadn’t died, there would be a point at which we could say, “this far and no further, I am willing to give this much up, but no more.” Instead, because Jesus is our example, and because he went all they way, we have no option but to also go all the way… whatever that might mean. : )

The Scandal of the Cross (1)

What did Jesus do on the cross? That is the question I would like to examine in the next few posts. I'm reading a book, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross - Atonement in the New Testament and Contemporary contexts. And in the up-coming posts would like to explore the implications of what both the authors, and the Bible itself says about the meaning of Christ's death on the cross.

The back cover says: "The New Testament displays a rich array of interpretations of the cross. These were shaped by the church in mission as it rooted the saving story of the scandalous cross in the language of every day realities and relationships. But for many Christians today, not only has the true scandal of the cross been obscured, the variety of its New Testament interpretations have been reduced to a single, controlling view of the atonement."

A question: how would you describe what Jesus did on the cross? Not physically, but theologically. How would you alter your description if you were addressing believers, verses the un-churched?