You are on page 1of 18

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive?

Introduction
Scripture provides many images to explain how Jesus' violent death on the cross saves humanity from sin (e.g. redemption, ransom, sacrifice, legal justification, victory over sin, reconciliation and healing), but a theology of atonement is not specifically set out in Scripture, nor has the church been able to agree on a coherent theological explanation of atonement. !his essay will examine the issue of redemptive violence as a characteristic of traditional atonement theories and propose a way of interpreting Scripture so that the violence of the cross does not imply that "od is vindictive.

Redemptive Violence
Soteriology# discusses how the violent death of Jesus on the cross relates to salvation from sin. !he conse$uence of sin% is death ("en #& '). !his is usually described as "od's judgement on sin ((om )& *+ ') and it may well be violent, but it is not obvious why salvation from sin must re$uire the violent death of ,hrist. -hy should suffering be re$uired for redemption at all. Just because the conse$uence of committing sin is death, why is another death needed to bring about reconciliation. Jesus scolded his disciples for not understanding the Scriptures saying, /-as it not necessary that the 0essiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory.1 (23 #4&#*), but are we justified in lin3ing suffering with redemption. !he conviction that violence can be used redemptively is commonplace4. !he problem is not that good violence is sometimes used to overcome bad violence (in a sinful world it might sometimes be necessary to use violence for the greater good) but that for "od to re$uire violence for salvation would imply "od is vindictive. !o be vindictive means to have an attitude towards offenses that demands retaliation and retribution in order to satisfy one's sense of justice or restore honour or hurt pride or for some other self+centred reason. 5f such an attitude were to be attributed to "od in an atonement theory, it would reflect badly on the theory (rather than on a good "od). 6tonement metaphors are intended to illuminate meaning. 5n time, this literary device often suffers the fate of becoming a dead metaphor where it no longer reveals the original intent of the metaphor.) (obert 7aly said that the over+logical application of atonement metaphors* leads to bad

8pposing atonement theories have caused division in the church, e.g. some ,hristians accuse those who do not teach the penal substitionary theory of the atonement of preaching /another gospel.1 # 6lister 0c"rath in /,hristian !heology& 6n 5ntroduction1 discusses the atonement under the heading of soteriology because he says /theories of atonement1 is a cumbersome and unhelpful term (0c"rath, #99#, p.%%9). 5 use the term because it emphasises its provisional nature and gives us freedom to explore alternatives. % Sin is variously defined as disobedience to "od's command, unfaithfulness to one's relationship with "od, and rebellion against "od's authority. !he different emphases are seen in different atonement theories. 4 Daniel M. Bell Jr says, /the message that violence redeems is pervasive1. 5t is seen in the war against terrorism, liberal gun laws, harsh prison sentences, death penalties, and movies where people who use /good violence1 overcome those who use /bad violence1. :ell says that even our language betrays the conviction that violence is redemptive, e.g. war on drugs and battle with cancer. !he free+will theodicy lin3s (redeems) violence and suffering to the greater good of having free will (:ell, #99;, p. #%). ) <.g. are sins something that can be paid for. 6re sins things at all. /Jesus dying so that you may live1 is a play on words giving reverse meanings to two events to emphasise the fact that we owe our lives to Jesus, but as a dead metaphor it is used to prove that Jesus death is the ground for all salvation. * /!he common charge levelled at the traditional view is that of unwarranted literalism1 (:locher, #994, p. *%#).

-2-

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive? theology, which leads to bad morality (7aly, #99', p. %*).' 7aly says that if ,hristians are to imitate "od, it is important that they do not see "od as vindictive or they will be too ready to accept or inflict violence themselves (p. %'). !raditional atonement theories= that view the violence of the cross as integral to "od's plan of salvation have been criticised on a number of fronts. (a) <ncouraging victims of violence to see passive acceptance as a virtue (to suffer as ,hrist willingly suffered for us, 0t #*&%;). (b) >romoting the idea of /good violence1 for achieving some desirable result (because "od is justly angry at sin, 0t %&'). (c) >ortraying "od as needing to use violence to avenge sin. "od cannot just forgive by grace ("od desires to overcome sin, Jn &#;). Joachim 0olander has argued for what he calls /atonement retributivism,1 not in order to justify punishment, but to see punishment as part of a conceptual pu??le where punishment operates alongside confession, penance, forgiveness and reconciliation. @e said that />ain and suffering can thus help the evil+doer to reach an insight into who he has become1 (0olander, #99;, p. ;)). !he inflicting of retributive pain and suffering would also give an insight into the character of their instigator, and one that is not conducive to seeing "od as gracious or merciful. 6lthough it is sometimes argued that retribution can have a restorative function in reconciling persons alienated because of the moral guilt of one of the parties (:ennett, #99#, p. *%), it can also have the opposite effect. !he mere possibility of violence being redemptive in some instances, does not justify its general use by humans or "od. 5t is recognised that every instance of anger is not vindictive, and not all violence is unjustified. !he wrath of "od against evil+doers that harm his children giving rise to violent judgement can be seen as just, but for "od to re$uire blood sacrifice in order to save is a different matter.

Traditional Atonement Theories


J. 7enny -eaver said, /5f ,hristians are uncomfortable with ,hristianity as a violent religion, the first step is to recognise the extent to which formulas of classic theology have contributed to violence both overt and systemic1 (-eaver, #99 , p. '#).;

Christus Victor
!his theory (held by 8rigen, 6ugustine and 6luen) applies the battle /metaphor1 given in the Aew !estament but "od defeated the devil, not by power, but by sacrifice. 8n the cross, ,hrist

' 7aly says that he is not just referring to ,hristians in the past, but the present ,hristian support for wars that go beyond the just war theory, the prevalence of capital punishment, the belief that only unnecessary violence is wrong, and the desire for the wrath of "od to fall on non+,hristians. = 5n the boo3 /!he Aature of the 6tonement& Bour Ciews1 it is noteworthy that none of the editors or contributors discusses the problem of the implications of redemptive violence. >ossibly this is because they view the wrath of "od as not being vindictive but justified, e.g. see ("reen, #99*, pp. #+ %) and it would be a problem common to all of the theories debated in the boo3, not a point of difference. ; -eaver's theory, /Aarrative ,hristus Cictor,1 sees the suffering of ,hrist as not being willed by "od or directed "od+ward, but Jesus passively submitting to death to complete his mission to demonstrate the nonviolent reign of "od (-eaver, #99 , p. ' ). !his sees the crucifixion as revelation. ,olin "unston replies that ,hrist did not just reveal something of importance, but that he achieved something of importance (0c"rath, #99#, p. %#=).

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive? defeated the enemy by giving his life as a ransom for sin. 6lthough some theologians thought that the ransom was paid by "od to the devil, most consider this as ta3ing the ransom metaphor too far. !he violent sacrificial death of Jesus is integral to this theory's soteriology. ,hrist is the bait in the trap that reveals the world's justice system as being unjust and ta3es away Satan's rights. 6 wea3ness in this view is that in transferring the meaning of the atonement to a cosmic battle between "od and Satan, human responsibility for sin is not dealt with, and the presence of continuing evil is not explained. !his theory portrays "od as outsmarting Satan by deceiving him, or at least using Satan's self+deception, to defeat him. 5n either case, this theory would portray "od as being involved in deceit, which combined with retributive violence, is not a satisfactory portrayal of "od's character.

Satisfaction
,hrist is the satisfaction, or substitution, for sin by his vicarious suffering on the cross. 6nselm of ,anterbury provided this theory, possibly influenced by his mediaeval thought world (honour had to be vindicated), based on the Scriptures about ,hrist dying in order to redeem sinners (5s )%D "al %& %). !he satisfaction theory ta3es seriously the need for people to feel their sin has been dealt with but has been criticised for portraying "od the Bather as an abusive father figure and as being excessively punitive in condemning relatively good people to eternal punishment. !he penal substitution theory, popular in evangelical circles 9, has evolved from the satisfaction theory. 5ts proponents are concerned to remain faithful to the Scriptures which they see as lin3ing salvation with ,hrist's death. !hey argue that "od cannot simply forgive sin, for that would be to condone it (0orris, ;*), p.4 )). 5t would go against "od's moral nature because "od is holy and just (>ac3er, #9 9, p. ;). 5t is because "od never contradicts himself that he must /satisfy1 himself and deal with the problem of sin (Stott, ;=*, p. )'). 5. @. @oward 0arshall does not agree that there is a problem with "od's use of redemptive violence. @e says that both "od's wrath at sin and judgement of sinners are justified (@oward 0arshall, #99)). !hey are essential attributes of "od because he is fundamentally holy and loving. !hese attributes /find expression in both love towards creation and yet also judgement and wrath when that creation is spoilt by sin1 (p. '). 0arshall explains that wrath and /mercy are both necessitated only when his creatures are in need caused by sin1 (p. *) and are therefore, both fundamental to "od's character. J. 5. >ac3er adds that the members of the trinity should not be thought of as separate individuals. >ac3er calls the sacrifice of atonement /a 'wrath absorber' which $uenches the judicial wrath of "od1 (>ac3er, #9 9, p. %). !his argument does not answer the criticism that redemption is only possible if a scapegoat is put to death as punishment, it only replaces /divine child abuse1 by /divine masochism1 (5nbody, #99#, p. )'). !he emphasis on ,hrist's sacrificial love does not answer the $uestion as to why the sacrifice was re$uired at all. !he 8! sacrificial system appears to support substitutionary atonement. 6lthough ancient

9 0any evangelicals see salvation as very complex and that although penal substitution is a helpful theory, it needs to be augmented by the other metaphors of the atonement (0orris, ;*), p.4 )). @ans :oersma says /if we ac3nowledge that violence is unavoidable everywhere and that violence can function in redemptive ways E then does not this call into $uestion E the character of the church as counterculture1 (:oersma, #99), p.#99). :oersma argues that the church opposes evil and it is not colluding with evil to fight it.

-!-

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive? civilisations used blood sacrifice to appease the gods, 5srael used it as an expression of faith. 7aniel :ell says that /,hrist's wor3 on the cross is the divine refusal of blood sacrifice1 (:ell, #99;, p. #)). @e argues that 6nselm and >aul have been misinterpreted and he proposes a re+ interpretation of the satisfaction theory. :ell says that 6nselm and the apostle >aul, if understood rightly, are not saying that the cross is about appeasing the wrath of "od, but it is about the lengths "od will go to that humanity might come into relationship with "od. :ell says that 6nselm does not see the Son of "od as becoming human in order that there would be a suitable sacrifice for "od to vent his wrath. Aor was it to meet the demands of moral order, /but so that humanity might be restored to the place of honour that "od had intended for it from the beginning (# >et &4)1. !hus ,hrist is our substitute, not in the sense of ta3ing our penalty, but in offering "od the faithfulness, love and obedience that we could not. >aul's comments in (om %&#) and )&; need to be interpreted in the light of >hil #&)+=, where it is clear that we are not saved by violence, /but Jesus' obedience and fidelity1. -hen >aul says that /"od is just1 he means that "od is faithful to his promises and desire for communion with his people. !he violence of the cross was perpetrated by humanity, not "od. Jesus fulfilled his mission of faithfully reaching out to humanity even when faced with human rejection in the form of the cross (:ell, #99;, p. #)). 5t is true that 6nselm emphasised ,hrist's obedience in place of humanity's disobedience while the >rotestant (eformers emphasised ,hrist ta3ing the punishment that humanity deserved (>enal Substitution). !he problem with returning to 6nselm's satisfaction theory is that we would still have the ethical problem of "od's desire for satisfaction re$uiring humanity to offer ,hrist to "od. !he (eformers chose the path of "od imputing humanity's sin to ,hrist on the cross (Boley, ;9;, p. ##;). :ell was concerned that the logic of blood sacrifice simply lets us /off the hoo3 for our sin by deflecting the punishment for that sin onto someone else1 (p. #*). :ell says that /,hrist's wor3 of atonement demands the rejection of blood sacrifice and the logic of redemptive violence1 and he directs attention to <?e3 =&%# which says that "od has no pleasure (satisfaction) in the death of anyone, and this would include his Son (:ell, #99;, p. #*).

Moral Influence
:oth the life and death of Jesus ta3en together are a moral influence for discipleship. 6belard found both the ,hristus Cictor and satisfaction theories to be morally offensive. @e said that ,hrist upheld the moral order of the universe by suffering the violence of the cross. 6belard emphasised Jesus' example of giving his life for his friends (Jn )& %), enduring suffering, and following in Jesus' footsteps ( >et #&# ). !his theory does not involve the resurrection or say why crucifixion was necessary as a sacrifice. 6lthough it calls for a human response, it does not explain where the power to overcome bondage to sin comes from. !he moral influence theory replaces the satisfaction theory's concern with "od's honour and justice with concern for the moral order of creation. Ciolence is seen as part of the culture of a sinful world and ,hrist's incarnation, bringing "od's Fingdom into this world, guaranteed that there would be conflict ending in violence (5nbody, #99#, p. )=). !his theory shares the criticism that it may encourage people to be submissive to abuse and see violence as redemptive.

-"-

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive?

An Alternative #olution
!he problem of redemptive violence is common to many atonement theories. 0ar3 0c5ntosh as3ed /is there an interpretation of Jesus' death that sees its significance for salvation, but does not& ( ) isolate his death from the rest of what ,hristians believe, (#) reduce the import of his death to a form of satisfaction for a divine demand, or (%) legitimi?e passive suffering or violence as inherently necessary, praiseworthy, or divinely sanctioned.1 (0c5ntosh, #99=, p. ;;). # 6lternatives to the traditional atonement theories have been suggested, but they generally do not avoid implicating "od in the use of redemptive violence in salvation. % Some have ta3en the position that the redemptive violence of the cross is a mystery (Fomoncha3, #99), p. ##), but this approach is open to the criticism that mystery is being used to defend a theory that has insoluble problems. 0y view is that the different meanings of salvation are being confused. !his is called a fallacy of e$uivocation. 0ar3 !hornton explains this is where two premises of an argument are used with different meanings (!hornton, ;=;, p. 4*) 4. !he two premises, ( ) that ,hrist's sacrifice on the cross saved sinners and (#) ,hristians are saved by grace alone, use the word /saved1 with two different meanings. !he confusion comes because there is overlap in the application of the two meanings. 5n the first premise, the crucifixion was the historical event responsible for the salvation of ,hristians subse$uent to that event. !his is a historical truth, not a universal truth. !he grace of "od is the metaphysical ground of salvation for all believers. !his is a universal theological truth. !he application of deductive reasoning to Scriptural atonement metaphors without due regard to their limitations or different meanings leads to logical contradictions and poor ethical conclusions. 6tonement theories that see ,hrist's death on the cross as the sole and universal ground of salvation interpret Scripture through the lens of this belief. Scripture can also be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the thesis that the sacrificial death of ,hrist saved those who came after him, but the sole universal ground of salvation is the grace of "od. !hese are not mutually exclusive, but if we confound the two truths and argue that ,hrist's death on the cross is the

# 0c5ntosh's own solution, which he entitles />aschal 0ystery,1 is somewhat unsatisfactory. @e sees Jesus' death on the cross as climaxing a life of obedience, a complete failure in worldly terms, salvation being achieved by the loving will of the Bather who raises his Son and shares the @oly Spirit with humanity (0c5ntosh, #99=, pp. 9;+ 9). % 7aniel 0igliore suggests that ,alvin's doctrine of the three offices of ,hrist, prophet, priest, and 3ing, could be employed to combine the above three theories of the atonement (0igliore, #994, pp. =#+ ='). ,hrist as prophet, teaches about the 3ingdom of "od (moral influence), ,hrist as priest offers himself as the perfect sacrifice on our behalf (satisfaction), and ,hrist as 3ing, rules the world, in spite of recalcitrant evil (,hrist the victor). !he wea3ness in this is that it does not provide answers to the problems mentioned above. !hey are not mutually corrective as 0igliore suggests (p. =*), and additional problems are created by the conflicts between the different theories that now need to be dealt with, e.g. 6belard found the other theories to be morally offensive. 0ore pertinently, the abiding problem of "od using violence against his Son in dealing with sin is still intact. Joel "reen categorises atonement theories into those that focus on atonement as sacrifice and those that focus on atonement as revelation. @e thin3s that a 3aleidoscope view of Scripture's atonement narrative is necessary to do justice to the different images ("reen, #99*, p. )'+ =)). !his view has similarly problems to 0igliore's. 4 0ar3 !hornton gives an obvious example of two premises used with different meanings& 6ll rivers have ban3s. :an3s are places where people 3eep money. !herefore, all rivers have places where people 3eep money.

-$-

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive? ground of salvation for all believers, we will necessarily imply that "od re$uires redemptive violence. Scripture may in places appear to use deductive reasoning based on ,hrist's death, but a closer loo3, employing the thesis of this essay, will show that this is not necessarily the case. )

The Writings of Paul on Jesus' Sacrifice on the Cross


6tonement texts are often cited without due regard to their context. !his is especially the case with the writings of the 6postle >aul, who wrote a large proportion of the Aew !estament. !wo factors that are usually not ta3en into consideration are ( ) that he became a ,hristian on the road to 7amascus subse$uent to the events of the cross, and (#) that he was writing to gentile ,hristians who, li3ewise, were post+<aster ,hristians. Jesus chose to submit to death on the cross so that many would be saved (03 9&4)). !he many people he was tal3ing about were post+ <aster ,hristians. ,hrist did not have to endure the cross. Jesus said prior to his crucifixion, that he could appeal to his Bather who would at once send more than # legions of angels to rescue him (0t #*&)%). 5f he had done so history as we 3now it would not exist. 5t would have precipitated Judgement 7ay. -hy. "od would not have allowed people to continue to be born into a world rejected by "od the Son *. Jesus rejected this alternative preferring that sinners who placed their faith in him would be reconciled to "od. !here was a high personal cost to all the "odhead in granting this forgiveness. "od the Bather did not demand that Jesus do this, and neither did Jesus presume on the BatherGs goodness, but it was "odGs desire from the beginning to create people who would enjoy, and benefit from, a relationship with their "od. Bor post+<aster ,hristians, the opportunity to be reconciled with "od is only possible because ,hrist endured the cross. >aul saw his own salvation as an example of the mercy and patience of "od to those who would come to believe in ,hrist for eternal life ( !im & *). !his is the context of >aul's writings. So when he says such things as /we have been justified by his blood1 ((om )&;), he can be understood to mean that Jesus' submitting to death on the cross has resulted in us having the opportunity to be saved by the grace of "od through faith. '

The Old Testament Sacrificial System


!he sacrifice of atonement described in the 8ld !estament was not a mechanism for dealing with sin, but an act of repentance expressed in terms of an ancient near eastern culture as opposed to pagan religions where /Sacrifice is about using violence to control violence by placing violence in a ritual, sacred sphere1 (0ilner, #99', p. .)). !he sacrifices of animals and grain in the 8ld !estament were intended to be offerings of faith. !he worshipper was saying that his livelihood depended on "od, and the act of giving the best of the produce expressed the worshipper's faith that these were gifts from "od and that the worshipper's life was in "od's hands. Borgiveness was granted by blood sacrifice (@eb ;&##), but the sacrifice was an offering of repentance and
) See the 6ppendix for some comments on relevant passages of Scripture. * !his is reminiscent of where "od provided an angel to prevent 6dam and <ve eating from the tree of life, presumably so that they would not be immortalised in their sin ("en %&#4). ' 5t is noteworthy that the 6postle John writes from a different context. Hnli3e >aul, he was already a ,hristian when he stood at the foot of the cross. John's writings emphasise the love of "od ( Jn 4&=), the teaching of ,hrist (Jn )& #D Jn %& ), and the extent of ,hrist's love (Jn )& %). 6lthough he describes ,hrist as /the atoning sacrifice for our sins1 on two occasions ( Jn #&# and 4& 9), John is here employing the image of the 8ld !estament sacrificial system.

-%-

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive? faith (>s )9& %). !he blood of bulls and goats alone, did not do anything to remove sin (5s & I @eb 9&4). !he sacrificial system prophetically portrayed ,hrist's death as "od's will and plan for atonement, but not as a historical event that would be the metaphysical ground of salvation. = ,hrist's sacrificial death was consistent with "od having mercy on sinners and accepting the pain of rejection. Salvation is found in "od's grace alone.

Disentangling Salvation Truths


Scripture is clear that sin is not a hopeless condition from which we cannot be reconciled to a holy "od. 6 sacrifice is not re$uired to appease an angry "od, or for justice' sa3e. !he love of "od was patient in the face of humanity's rejection, even sending the Son to us (see Jesus' parable in 03 #&*). Jesus preached a message of repentance and faith. !he cross is the ultimate demonstration of "od's love ((om )&=). Bor those saved subse$uent to Jesus' crucifixion, their salvation is owed to ,hrist's obedience. !his is a historical truth. 5t is theological speculation to extend this belief to those who lived prior to ,hrist. @ebrews lists 8ld !estament heroes who were commended for their faith (vs.%;) and made perfect along with us (vs. 49), who are also saved through faith according to <ph #&=. ; "od desires communion (fellowship, relationship) with humanity. Sin brea3s this communion. !he restoration of the relationship cannot be achieved while "od see3s retribution, nor with a "od who has ta3en retribution. 5t is the ,hristian conviction that "od forgives sins freely out of his grace. !here is no need to loo3 for another reason.#9 !o do so, would imply that there is something greater than "od, such as the power of evil, or the honour of "od, or the moral law. -hen we define grace in terms of humanity's need (e.g. /"od's riches at ,hrist's expense1, or as /undeserved favour1), we move attention away from grace being an attribute of "od to being an action of "od for us. Salvation by grace is a truth that concerns the nature of "od. !his is why a mista3e in the critical reasoning about the atonement leads to theories that portray "od as re$uiring violence for human redemption. :oth truths about salvation can be held at the same time, but it is important not to confuse the two truths in our reasoning, or the violence of the cross will be transferred from an event in history perpetrated by sinful humanity onto a universal truth, with the implication that "od has a vindictive character.

= /(oger @aight spea3s for many when he expresses doubt about atonement theories that ma3e salvation available through the cross, /indirectly ma3e Jesus' death something good,1 and engender a spirituality that is fascinated by suffering1 (,ahill, #99', p. 4#4). ; !he problem of irresistible grace and divine causality is beyond the scope of this essay. !orrance calls this a problem caused by /!he rationalism of both universalism and limited atonement1 and /pushing through its partial insight into the death of the cross to its logical conclusion1 (!orrance, #9 9, p. ='). #9 2isa ,ahill says, /Aowhere in the Aew !estament does forgiveness depend on punishment or retribution1 (,ahill, #99', p. 4#=).

-&-

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive?

Combinin' the two meanin's of (salvation)


*+ ,etaphysical+ Salvation (or reconciliation with "od) is available to all who turn to "od in faith because "od is gracious and merciful. 2+ -istorical+ Jesus chose to die on the cross rather than to retaliate and precipitate judgement. :y so doing, he became saviour of the world giving opportunity for those who would come after him to be saved. + !herefore, (a) for all those saved subse$uent to Jesus' crucifixion, their salvation is attributable to both "od's grace and Jesus' sacrifice. (b) for the faithful who lived before Jesus' death on the cross, their salvation was due to the grace of "od alone.

Conclusion
,hristianity proclaims a gospel of reconciliation with a gracious "od who does not need a blood sacrifice to forgive us. -e need to be careful not to ta3e atonement metaphors beyond their intended use and not to confuse different meanings of salvation, or else we will portray "od as needing to use violence. Such a distortion in our image of "od will cloud the gospel ma3ing it more difficult for people to turn to the "od of grace, receive his forgiveness, and be reconciled to "od. !he challenge to the church is for us not to hold so tightly to denominational doctrines of the atonement (which are often thought of as the fundamentals of the faith) compared to our commitment to truth, where ever he may lead. <ssay by 7ere3 !hompson !his revision& January, #9 #

References .A/A0
:ash, 6. (#9 ). Borgiveness& 6 re+appraisal. Studies in Christian Ethics 24(#) %%+ 4*. doi& 9. ''J9;)%;4*= 9%;'4%; :eilby, J. F., I <ddy, >. (. (<ds). (#99*). The nature of the atonement: four views. 7owners "rove, 52& 5C>. :ell Jr, 7aniel 0. (#99;). "od does not demand blood. Christian CenturyD 126(%), ##+#*. :ennett, ,. (#99#). !he varieties of retributive experience. Philosophical uarterly, )#(#9'), 4). (etrieved from <:S,8host. :locher, @. (#994). :iblical metaphors and the doctrine of the atonement. 5n !ournal of the Evan"elical Theolo"ical Society# 4$(4), *#;+*4). :oersma, @. (#99)). :eing reconciled. 5n Smith, J. F. 6. I 8lthius, J. @. (<ds.), %adical orthodo&y and the reformed tradition (pp. =%+#9#). "rand (apids& :a3er 6cademic.

-1-

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive? ,ahill, 2. (#99'). Kuaestio disputata the atonement paradigm& does it still have explanatory value. Theolo"ical Studies# 6'(#), 4 =+4%#. (etrieved from (eligion and >hilosophy ,ollection database. 7aly, (. J. (#99'). 5mages of "od and the imitation of "od& >roblems with atonement. !heological Studies, *=( ), %*+) . (etrieved from (eligion and >hilosophy ,ollection database. Boley, "eorge ,. ( ;9;). (nselm)s theory of the atonement. 2ondon& 2ongmans, "reen, and ,o. (etrieved from http&JJwww.archive.orgJdetailsJanselmstheory99foleuoft "reen, J. :. (#99 ). ,rucifixion. 5n :oc3muehl, 0. (<d.), The Cam*rid"e companion to !esus (pp. ='+ 9 ). ,ambridge& ,ambridge Hniversity >ress. "reen, J. :. (#99*). Faleidoscopic view. 5n :eilby, J. F., I <ddy, >. (. (<ds.), The nature of the atonement: four views (pp. )'+ =)). 7owners "rove, 52& 5C>. @oward 0arshall, 5. @. (#99), July). The theolo"y of the atonement. >aper presented at Symposium on the 6tonement, 2ondon. (etrieved from http&JJwww.eau3.orgJtheologyJ3eyLpapersJ6tonementJ 5nbody, !. 2. (#99#). The many faces of christolo"y. Aashville& 6bingdon >ress. Fomoncha3, J. 6. (#99)). !he violence of the cross. Commonweal# 1+2(#), ;+##. (etrieved from <:S,8host. 0c"rath, 6. <. (#99'). Christian theolo"y. (n introduction. (4th ed.) 8xford& :lac3well >ublishing. 0c5ntosh, 0. 6. (#99=). ,ivine teachin": an introduction to Christian theolo"y. 0alden& :lac3well >ublishing. 0igliore, 7. 2. (#994). !he person and wor3 of Jesus ,hrist. 5n -aith see.in" understandin". (n introduction to Christian theolo"y. /2nd ed.0 0ichigan& <erdmans. 0ilner, 6. (#99'). The *lood of Christ. (etrieved from http&JJwww.amilner.orgJsacrifice.pdf 0olander, J. (#99;). 6tonement (etributivism. Studia Theolo"ica# 6+(#), '=+ ;*. doi& 9. 9=9J99%;%%=9;9%%) 9' . 0orris, 2. ( ;*)). The cross in the new testament. <xeter& >aternoster >ress. >ac3er, J. 5. (#9 9). !he necessity of the atonement. 5n ". A. <. Bluhrer (<d.), (tonement (pp. + '). >hillipsburg, A.J.& > I ( >ublishing. Stott, J. (. -. ( ;=*). The cross of Christ. Aottingham& 5C> !orrance, !. B. (#99;). (tonement: The person and wor. of Christ. 7owners "rove, 52& 5C>. !hornton, 0. ( ;=;). ,o we have free will1 :edminster, :ristol& :ristol ,lassical >ress. -arfield, :. :. ( ;'9). The person and wor. of Christ. >hiladelphia, >6& >resbyterian and (eformed >ublishing ,o. -illiams, S. A. (#9 ). -hat ,hristians believe about forgiveness. Studies in Christian Ethics# 24(#), 4'+ )*. doi& 9. ''J9;)%;4*= 9%;'449 -eaver, J. (#99 ). Ciolence in ,hristian !heology. Cross Currents, ) (#), )9. (etrieved from <:S,8host.

- *2 -

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive?

Appendi3
Comments on #criptures Relatin' to the Atonement
Exodus 6:6. Say therefore to the Israelites, I am the LORD, and I will free you from the burdens of the E y!tians and deli"er you from sla"ery to them. I will redeem you with an outstret#hed arm and with mi hty a#ts of $ud ement.% Comment: Redem!tion of Israel was a#hie"ed without sa#rifi#e. &he death of the firstborn sons of E y!t was an a#t of $ud ement. Exodus 15:13. In your steadfast lo"e you led the !eo!le whom you redeemed' you uided them by your stren th to your holy abode.% Comment: &he Se!tua int says that (od ransomed Israel )as in Is *+,+ in -RS./ and this was done without a sa#rifi#e. Num 35:31-33. Moreo"er you shall a##e!t no ransom for the life of a murderer who is sub$e#t to the death !enalty' a murderer must be !ut to death. +0-or shall you a##e!t ransom for one who has fled to a #ity of refu e, enablin the fu iti"e to return to li"e in the land before the death of the hi h !riest. ++1ou shall not !ollute the land in whi#h you li"e' for blood !ollutes the land, and no e2!iation #an be made for the land, for the blood that is shed in it, e2#e!t by the blood of the one who shed it.% Comment: &his is the !rin#i!le that !unishment #annot be transferred to another !erson. Ps 22:1. My (od, my (od, why ha"e you forsa3en me4 5hy are you so far from hel!in me, from the words of my roanin 4% Comment: &hese words 6uoted by 7hrist on the #ross do not mean that (od turned away from his Son, but e2!ress Jesus8 faith that (od would sa"e him as Da"id #onfessed in this !salm )e. . 9s 00,0*/. Jesus: resurre#tion #an be ta3en to im!ly that Jesus was not forsa3en by (od. If (od #ould forsa3e his son, there would be no assuran#e that he would not forsa3e anyone else. Ps 49:7-9. &ruly, no ransom a"ails for one8s life, there is no !ri#e one #an i"e to (od for it. ; <or the ransom of life is #ostly, and #an ne"er suffi#e, =that one should li"e on fore"er and ne"er see the ra"e.% Comment: Sin#e (od is our 7reator, Sustainer and Owner, there is nothin we #an i"e him to ransom our life, or anyone else8s. Is 53:5-6. But he was wounded for our trans ressions, #rushed for our ini6uities' u!on him was the !unishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed. >?ll we li3e shee! ha"e one astray' we ha"e all turned to our own way, and the LORD has laid on him the ini6uity of us all.% Comment: 7rime and !unishment are not the same as sin and death. In a sinful world !unishment restrains #rime and i"es $usti#e to the "i#tims. @uman sin brea3s the life

- ** -

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive? i"in relationshi! with (od. <or i"eness and re#on#iliation with a lo"in and mer#iful (od is always a"ailable. &he Son of (od #ame into this sinful world and endured tem!tation, sufferin , and death. Anli3e us, Jesus did not sin. &he !unishment )ini6uity/ he endured was un$ust, but Jesus remained faithful to the end. &he <ather did not forsa3e the Son or transfer our !unishment to him, but Jesus sa#rifi#ed his life to sa"e many !eo!le for (od. Ezek 18:32. <or I ha"e no !leasure in the death of anyone, says the Lord (OD. &urn, then, and li"e.% Comment: Daniel M. Bell Jr !ointed out that (od would find no !leasure in the death of his Son. )Bell, 0BB=, !. 0>/. Mt 26:28. for this is my blood of the #o"enant, whi#h is !oured out for many for the for i"eness of sins.% Comment: &he word many% is usually ta3en to refer to 7hristians% as o!!osed to nonC7hristians% bein sa"ed, but it #an be ta3en to refer to those who will be sa"ed subse6uent to his death as o!!osed to those who #ame to faith before. Mt 26:53. Do you thin3 that I #annot a!!eal to my <ather, and he will at on#e send me more than twel"e le ions of an els4% Comment: &his "erse re"eals more than Jesus: willin ness to i"e his life, it shows the #onse6uen#es if he did not. &he sendin of an army of an els is reminis#ent of the $ud ement of (od as des#ribed in the boo3 of Re"elations. Mk 10:45 Mt 20:28!. <or the Son of Man #ame not to be ser"ed but to ser"e, and to i"e his life a ransom for many.% Comment: &he #onte2t is a dis#ussion on how #itiDens beha"e in (od8s Ein dom. &he dis#i!les had been tal3in about !ositions of !ri"ile e, but Jesus tea#hes them that reatness in his followers is seen in terms of ser"i#e and that e"en he #ame to ser"e others. Jesus uses the illustration of sla"ery )"s. **/ to tea#h that his most im!ortant followers are those who are willin to be#ome sla"es of the others. Jesus does not #han e the sub$e#t in "s. *F. @e says that he is !re!ared to e2#han e !la#es with a sla"e, a ransom% bein the !ri#e of a sla"e. ?lthou h this sayin may be ta3en as a !ro!heti# referen#e to Jesus death, it is in terms of the !rin#i!le of ser"in others to the e2tent of dyin for them. "k 24:26. 5as it not ne#essary that the Messiah should suffer these thin s and then enter into his lory4% Comment: 5hen Jesus as3ed this 6uestion, he e2!e#ted the answer to be yes, and the way he affirmed it was by referen#e to the S#ri!tures. #n 1:29. &he ne2t day he GJohn the Ba!tistH saw Jesus #omin toward him and de#lared, @ere is the Lamb of (od who ta3es away the sin of the worldI% Comment: Jesus is the lamb who was slain. &his is the lan ua e of the Old &estament

- *2 -

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive? sa#rifi#ial system. &he lamb was 3illed )a ainst its will/. Its life was not, and #ould not, be offered in substitution for a human life as in !a an reli ions. &he Lamb of (od is the lamb that (od brin s to the sa#rifi#ial altar. It was a !romise of (od ena#ted in the #ustom of an an#ient near eastern #ulture. ? #o"enant was ratified in blood by the !riest who was sayin may I be 3illed li3e this, if I fail to 3ee! this #o"enant. Jesus believed in and accepted the ,ovenant of "od. <vil was overcome (sin ta3en away) by the faithful life of the covenant subject. #n 3:16-17. <or (od so lo"ed the world that he a"e his only Son, so that e"eryone who belie"es in him may not !erish but may ha"e eternal life. JKIndeed, (od did not send the Son into the world to #ondemn the world, but in order that the world mi ht be sa"ed throu h him.% Comment: It is im!ortant not to re ard the !ersons of the odhead in a triCtheisti# way, otherwise the #riti#ism of di"ine #hild abuse arises. &he Son of (od a"e his life on the #ross out of lo"e for sinners. &he alternati"e was to brin $ud ement on them. Sal"ation is about our #ommunion with (od. 9eo!le are sa"ed throu h a relationshi! of faith in (od. Sins are not !hysi#al thin s that are dealt with by the #ru#ifi2ion. &he #ross s!ea3s of the for i"eness of a mer#iful (od who refused to $ud e and #ondemn the world at the time of Jesus: #ru#ifi2ion. #n 15:13. -o one has reater lo"e than this, to lay down one8s life for one8s friends.% Comment: Bein a friend means bein a friend e"en when the other !erson has sinned. 7hrist:s death was not $ust a demonstration of the e2tent of his lo"e intended for our edifi#ation and moti"ation. @e was faithful to his friends to the e2tent of dyin that they mi ht be sa"ed. 5e, today, would not be ali"e if Jesus had not lo"ed us enou h to o throu h death on the #ross for us. $om 3:23-26. sin#e all ha"e sinned and fall short of the lory of (od' 0*they are now $ustified by his ra#e as a ift, throu h the redem!tion that is in 7hrist Jesus, 0Fwhom (od !ut forward as a sa#rifi#e of atonement by his blood, effe#ti"e throu h faith. @e did this to show his ri hteousness, be#ause in his di"ine forbearan#e he had !assed o"er the sins !re"iously #ommitted' 0>it was to !ro"e at the !resent time that he himself is ri hteous and that he $ustifies the one who has faith in Jesus.% Comment: &he lory of (od is his ra#ious lo"e. &o fall short of the lory of (od will result in death. In earlier times, (od !assed o"er )for a"e/ sins without any need for a sa#rifi#e, to show that he for i"es when we turn to him in re!entan#e and faith. (od:s ri hteousness is seen in Jesus: faithfulness be#ause (od a ain showed his !atien#e in not $ud in the sins of the world but for i"in those who ha"e faith in Jesus. $om 4:25. who was handed o"er to death for our tres!asses and was raised for our $ustifi#ation.% Comment: Resurre#tion of those whose ho!e is in Jesus 7hrist is #onfirmed in the resurre#tion of Jesus. Justifi#ation is the assuran#e of 3nowin you are ri ht in belie"in in Jesus. Justifi#ation here does not need to be understood as a le al term. $om 5:9. Mu#h more surely then, now that we ha"e been $ustified by his blood, will we be

-* -

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive? sa"ed throu h him from the wrath of (od.% Comment: &he word we% refers to 9aul and the 7hristians he is writin to. $om 5:11. But more than that, we e"en boast in (od throu h our Lord Jesus 7hrist, throu h whom we ha"e now re#ei"ed re#on#iliation.% Comment: B. B. 5arfield says that this is the only !la#e in the -& where the word atonement% )translated in -RS. as re#on#iliation%/ o##urs )5arfield, J=KB, !. +FJ /. $om 5:16-21. ?nd the free ift is not li3e the effe#t of the one man8s sin. <or the $ud ment followin one tres!ass brou ht #ondemnation, but the free ift followin many tres!asses brin s $ustifi#ation. JKIf, be#ause of the one man8s tres!ass, death e2er#ised dominion throu h that one, mu#h more surely will those who re#ei"e the abundan#e of ra#e and the free ift of ri hteousness e2er#ise dominion in life throu h the one man, Jesus 7hrist. J; &herefore $ust as one man8s tres!ass led to #ondemnation for all, so one man8s a#t of ri hteousness leads to $ustifi#ation and life for all. J=<or $ust as by the one man8s disobedien#e the many were made sinners, so by the one man8s obedien#e the many will be made ri hteous. 0BBut law #ame in, with the result that the tres!ass multi!lied' but where sin in#reased, ra#e abounded all the more, 0Jso that, $ust as sin e2er#ised dominion in death, so ra#e mi ht also e2er#ise dominion throu h $ustifi#ation leadin to eternal life throu h Jesus 7hrist our Lord.% Comment: 9aul8s ar ument here is theolo i#al rather than histori#al. ?dam and 7hrist are not so mu#h bein #om!ared as indi"iduals from history as are sin and its #onse6uen#es bein #om!ared to ra#e and its #onse6uen#es. It is dan erous to stret#h any !arable or meta!hor beyond its intended meanin . Sin leads to death, while ra#e leads to life. 9aul is not a theolo ian as we would understand today. Justifi#ation is not a do#trine to 9aul. Justifi#ation is the assuran#e that one:s faith in 7hrist will entail sal"ation. $om 6:10. &he death he died, he died to sin, on#e for all' but the life he li"es, he li"es to (od.% Comment: Jesus died be#ause sin in the world brou ht death with it. &he Son of (od:s in#arnation as a mortal human made him sub$e#t to death. Jesus died to sin, not in the sense of not sinnin anymore, be#ause he was without sin, but he died to the world of sin, the 3in dom of dar3ness of this world that he had entered, brin in his li ht whi#h o"er#ame the dar3ness to the e2tent of risin from the dead. $om 8:3-4. <or (od has done what the law, wea3ened by the flesh, #ould not do, by sendin his own Son in the li3eness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he #ondemned sin in the flesh, *so that the $ust re6uirements of the law mi ht be fulfilled in us, who wal3 not a##ordin to the flesh but a##ordin to the S!irit.% Comment: &his !assa e does not need to be ta3en to mean that (od #ondemned sin in Jesus: flesh, but in sinful humanity:s flesh )referin to death/. 5al3in a##ordin to the S!irit )or s!irit/ refers to a life of faith. $om 8:30-33. ?nd those whom he !redestined he also #alled' and those whom he #alled

- *! -

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive? he also $ustified' and those whom he $ustified he also lorified. +J5hat then are we to say about these thin s4 If (od is for us, who is a ainst us4 +0@e who did not withhold his own Son, but a"e him u! for all of us, will he not with him also i"e us e"erythin else4 ++5ho will brin any #har e a ainst (od8s ele#t4 It is (od who $ustifies.% Comment: 7hristians are $ustified in their faith be#ause (od stands behind their #onfiden#e. @e withheld nothin to sa"e us, not e"en the life of Jesus, so would he not for i"e us, sa"e us, be re#on#iled to us, ado!t us and lo"e us as his own #hildren4 &his !assa e uses the ima e of the relationshi! between (od and his !eo!le. (od:s enemies tried to et rid of Jesus by 3illin him, but it was im!ossible to defeat (od. &he <ather did not forsa3e his Son. 1 Co% 1:18. <or the messa e about the #ross is foolishness to those who are !erishin , but to us who are bein sa"ed it is the !ower of (od.% Comment: &he !ower is not worldly !ower to o"er#ome, but s!iritual !ower to unite, to re#on#ile, and restore relationshi!s. &his is not the ty!e of !ower the world thin3s of when it thin3s of !ower to destroy or #ontrol. O"er#omin this ty!e of !ower would be a small matter to the 7reator. &he !ower that matters to (od, is the !ower that unites him with his lost #hildren. &he messa e is of the e2tra"a ant lo"e of (od seen in how far he will o. &here is no #oer#i"e !ower in the #ross' and that is seen as foolishness by the world. 1 Co% 1:30. @e is the sour#e of your life in 7hrist Jesus, who be#ame for us wisdom from (od, and ri hteousness and san#tifi#ation and redem!tion,% Comment: (od is the sour#e of our life be#ause of 7hrist:s ri hteousness in remainin faithful to (od:s #o"enant. Jesus did not $ust tea#h wisdom from (od, he li"ed it out, to the end. 1 Co% 5:7&. <or our !as#hal lamb, 7hrist, has been sa#rifi#ed.% Comment: &he O& sa#rifi#ial system is often a!!lied !ro!heti#ly and symboli#ly to 7hrist:s death on the #ross, but we need to be #areful not to e2tend the meta!hor beyond the referen#e to his death bein sa#rifi#ial. 1 Co% 15:3. Bor 5 handed on to you as of first importance what 5 in turn had received& that ,hrist died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures% Comment: Jesus: death for our sins was not about him !ayin our debt to satisfy (od. It was to re#on#ile re!entant sinners with (od. Jesus submitted to death on the #ross so that many of those who would #ome after him #ould ha"e a relationshi! with (od. @ow #ould (od $ust for i"e sinners without !ayment and not a!!ear to be a#tin un$ustly4 &he !arable of the wor3ers in the "ineyard )Matt 0B,JCJ>/ addresses this attitude that wants (od to be $ust rather than ra#ious. 1 Co% 15:17. 5f ,hrist has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.1 Comment: Jesus: resurre#tion is a #entral 7hristian belief. (od #annot be 3illed be#ause of our sin. 5e #annot es#a!e from (od, but we #an be sa"ed from sin, and be re#on#iled to (od. Sin has lost its !ower.

- *" -

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive? 2 Co% 5:14-21. J*<or the lo"e of 7hrist ur es us on, be#ause we are #on"in#ed that one has died for all' therefore all ha"e died. JF?nd he died for all, so that those who li"e mi ht li"e no lon er for themsel"es, but for him who died and was raised for them. <rom now on, therefore, we re ard no one from a human !oint of "iew' e"en thou h we on#e 3new 7hrist from a human !oint of "iew, we 3now him no lon er in that way. JKSo if anyone is in 7hrist, there is a new #reation, e"erythin old has !assed away' see, e"erythin has be#ome newI J;?ll this is from (od, who re#on#iled us to himself throu h 7hrist, and has i"en us the ministry of re#on#iliation' J=that is, in 7hrist (od was re#on#ilin the world to himself,L not #ountin their tres!asses a ainst them, and entrustin the messa e of re#on#iliation to us. 0BSo we are ambassadors for 7hrist, sin#e (od is ma3in his a!!eal throu h us' we entreat you on behalf of 7hrist, be re#on#iled to (od. 0J<or our sa3e he made him to be sin who 3new no sin, so that in him we mi ht be#ome the ri hteousness of (od.%
J>

Comment: Lo"e #o"ers a multitude of sins )J 9et *,;/. &he (od of ra#e does not demand $usti#e of sinners, (od #ame in human form and submitted to death on the #ross rather than $ud e us. Anity by faith with 7hrist releases the !ower of the Ein dom of (od in our li"es to be#ome a new #reation. By !la#in our faith in Jesus, we #ontinue his wor3 and be#ome the ri hteousness of (od in the world, 7hrist8s ambassadors, as 9aul !uts it. '() 2:20-21. and it is no lon er I who li"e, but it is 7hrist who li"es in me. ?nd the life I now li"e in the flesh I li"e by faith in the Son of (od, who lo"ed me and a"e himself for me. 0J I do not nullify the ra#e of (od' for if $ustifi#ation #omes throu h the law, then 7hrist died for nothin .% Comment: If Jesus had not i"en himself on the #ross, 9aul would ha"e been lost, for he was not a follower of 7hrist at that time. 9aul saw his faith as bein $ustified by the ra#e of (od in allowin this tra"esty of $usti#e to o##ur. 9aul did not see $usti#e ser"ed by 7hrist:s death on the #ross, for this would nullify the ra#e of (od. '() 3:8. ?nd the s#ri!ture, foreseein that (od would $ustify the (entiles by faith, de#lared the os!el beforehand to ?braham, sayin , ?ll the (entiles shall be blessed in you.% Comment: Both the Jew and the (entile are $ustified by faith, not sa"ed by faith )sal"ation is by the ra#e of (od/, but our assuran#e of sal"ation is $ustified by faith. ?braham8s faith was a si n for the (entiles. Jesus )?braham:s des#endent/ blessed the (entiles by not $ud in them and sa#rifi#in his life that they mi ht be sa"ed. '() 3:13. 7hrist redeemed us from the #urse of the law by be#omin a #urse for usMfor it is written, 7ursed is e"eryone who han s on a tree% Comment: ?lthou h this "erse uses the meta!hor of redem!tion, the meta!hor should not be ta3en to mean that the !enaly for sin was transferred from sinners to 7hrist. Jesus li"ed by faith, ra#e, obedien#e, and lo"e, e"en thou h this meant his #omin under the #urse% of #ru#ifi2ion. &his was not a transa#tional or $udi#ial substitution, but a sa#rifi#e moti"ated by faithfulness to (od and lo"e for humanity. E*+ 1:5-8(. F@e destined us for ado!tion as his #hildren throu h Jesus 7hrist, a##ordin to

- *$ -

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive? the ood !leasure of his will, >to the !raise of his lorious ra#e that he freely bestowed on us in the Belo"ed. KIn him we ha"e redem!tion throu h his blood, the for i"eness of our tres!asses, a##ordin to the ri#hes of his ra#e ;that he la"ished on us.% Comment: 7hristians were redeemed )set free from sin, re#on#iled with (od, sa"ed/ be#ause Jesus a"e his life for them. &his was the final a#t of a life of faith and ra#e. -ote that it is a##ordin to the ri#hes of the ra#e of the <ather and Son that we are sa"ed, not a##ordin to the obedien#e of Jesus to the law. &he !assa e is about our ra#ious ado!tion into (od8s family and for i"eness of our sins. 5e are ado!ted into (od:s family throu h Jesus, the true elder brother who has #ome to #all us home )see &im Eeller8s &he 9rodi al (od%/. E*+ 5:1-2. &herefore be imitators of (od, as belo"ed #hildren, 0and li"e in lo"e, as 7hrist lo"ed us and a"e himself u! for us, a fra rant offerin and sa#rifi#e to (od.% Comment: If 7hrist:s sa#rifi#e is somethin to be imitated, 9aul must be referrin to it as an a#t of de"otion to (od and selfless ser"i#e of others. Co) 1:13-14. @e has res#ued us from the !ower of dar3ness and transferred us into the 3in dom of his belo"ed Son, J*in whom we ha"e redem!tion, the for i"eness of sins.% Comment: &here is no innate !ower in dar3ness, only sub"erted !ower. &he enemies of (od ha"e no !ower e2#e!t that stolen from (od. &o be redeemed from the sedu#tion of sheer !ower% is freedom indeed. &he 3in dom of (od is here identified as bein the same as the 3in dom of 7hrist. Both 7hrist and the <ather for i"e us our sins. &o be for i"en by the one you ha"e sinned a ainst em!owers you to enter into a relationshi! with (od, i.e. to be redeemed. Co) 1:20. and throu h him (od was !leased to re#on#ile to himself all thin s, whether on earth or in hea"en, by ma3in !ea#e throu h the blood of his #ross.% Comment: Just as 7hrist was in"ol"ed in the #reation of all thin s )7ol J,J>/, he is in"ol"ed in the re#on#iliation of #reation with (od. Jesus: death on the #ross enabled 7hristians to ha"e !ea#e with (od, but re#on#iliation for the rest of #reation awaits his se#ond #omin )Rom ;,+BC00/. 1 ,-m 2:5-6. <or there is one (od' there is also one mediator between (od and human3ind, 7hrist Jesus, himself human, >who a"e himself a ransom for all Mthis was attested at the ri ht time.% Comment: ? mediator has a relationshi! with both of the estran ed !arties. Jesus: uni6ue nature of Son of (od and Son of Man, made him a !erfe#t a mediator. Jesus 3new the <ather8s lo"e for the lost, he understood the need of the lost and lo"ed them as the <ather did, and he would i"e anythin to re#on#ile them. 7hrist !aid the !ri#e of bein a faithful mediator, the ransom% !ri#e for those who would be sa"ed. @e did not !ur#hase them. &here was no transa#tion, nor transfer of sin, or ri hteousness. (ra#e is #ostly to the i"er, but noCone re#ei"es !ayment. ,-tus 2:14. @e it is who a"e himself for us that he mi ht redeem us from all ini6uity and !urify for himself a !eo!le of his own who are Dealous for ood deeds.%

- *% -

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive? Comment: &he #onte2t is referrin to !ostCEaster 7hristians who are re#on#iled with (od by faith. .e& 2:17-18. &herefore he had to be#ome li3e his brothers and sisters in e"ery res!e#t, so that he mi ht be a mer#iful and faithful hi h !riest in the ser"i#e of (od, to ma3e a sa#rifi#e of atonement for the sins of the !eo!le. J;Be#ause he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to hel! those who are bein tested.% Comment: &he author of @ebrews uses the O& sa#rifi#ial system as a meta!hor to hel! e2!lain the wor3 of 7hrist. ?lthou h (od used the sa#rifi#ial system to re"eal himself and his ways to Israel and it !ro!heti#ally foreshadowed 7hrist:s life and sa#rifi#ial death, e"ery detail need not be ta3en as ha"in meanin , either literally or symboli#ally. .e& 9:12-14. he entered on#e for all into the @oly 9la#e, not with the blood of oats and #al"es, but with his own blood, thus obtainin eternal redem!tion. J+<or if the blood of oats and bulls, with the s!rin3lin of the ashes of a heifer, san#tifies those who ha"e been defiled so that their flesh is !urified, J*how mu#h more will the blood of 7hrist, who throu h the eternal S!irit offered himself without blemish to (od, !urify our #ons#ien#e from dead wor3s to worshi! the li"in (odI% Comment: &his #om!arison between the O& sa#rifi#ial system and 7hrist:s sa#rifi#e is used to e2!lain that $ust as the Jews #ould !urify themsel"es by their a#t of faith, 7hristians, be#ause of 7hrist:s sa#rifi#e, ha"e been #leansed from a uilty #ons#ien#e by faith )as o!!osed to tryin to !lease (od by ood wor3s/. .e& 9:22. Indeed, under the law almost e"erythin is !urified with blood, and without the sheddin of blood there is no for i"eness of sins.% Comment: &he tem!le sa#rifi#ial system #an be seen as symboli# of Jesus8 sa#rifi#e for the for i"eness of sins, but unli3e the tem!le sa#rifi#ial system, for i"eness was not ranted under the law%, but by the ra#e of (od. .e& 9:26-28. for then he would ha"e had to suffer a ain and a ain sin#e the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has a!!eared on#e for all at the end of the a e to remo"e sin by the sa#rifi#e of himself. 0K?nd $ust as it is a!!ointed for mortals to die on#e, and after that the $ud ment, 0;so 7hrist, ha"in been offered on#e to bear the sins of many, will a!!ear a se#ond time, not to deal with sin, but to sa"e those who are ea erly waitin for him.% Comment: Sin is not a thin that #an be transferred or obliterated. It is a relationshi! one wron that needs to be re#on#iled. 7hrist:s sa#rifi#e to bear the sins of many% is about (od:s forebearan#e of sin in 7hrist:s !referen#e to die rather than $ud e, and in so doin o!en a door for many to be re#on#iled to (od. .e&%e/s 10:12. But when 7hrist had offered for all time a sin le sa#rifi#e for sins, he sat down at the ri ht hand of (od,% Comment: &his is a #ontrast with the ne#essity of Israel:s sa#rifi#ial system to #ontinually offer sa#rifi#es. 7hrist does not need to do that. @is sa#rifi#e was not a!!easement of a "en eful (od be#ause of sin. @is sa#rifi#e o!ened the way to

- *& -

Can the violence of the cross be seen in a way that avoids the implication that God is vindictive? for i"eness for the many 7hristians who would follow. 1 Pet 2:20-24. If you endure when you are beaten for doin wron , what #redit is that4 But if you endure when you do ri ht and suffer for it, you ha"e (od8s a!!ro"al. 0J<or to this you ha"e been #alled, be#ause 7hrist also suffered for you, lea"in you an e2am!le, so that you should follow in his ste!s. 00 @e #ommitted no sin, and no de#eit was found in his mouth.% 0+ 5hen he was abused, he did not return abuse' when he suffered, he did not threaten' but he entrusted himself to the one who $ud es $ustly. 0*@e himself bore our sins in his body on the #ross, so that, free from sins, we mi ht li"e for ri hteousness' by his wounds you ha"e been healed.% Comment: 7hristians are set free from retaliatin for sins and see3in $usti#e instead of re#on#iliation. 5hen we loo3 to the #ross we see how Jesus trusted (od with his life so that we mi ht be sa"edNhealed. Jesus bore our sins% in "erse 0* is another way of sayin that he endured the #ru#ifi2ion be#ause of our sins. 1 Pet 3:18. <or 7hrist also suffered for sins on#e for all, the ri hteous for the unri hteous, in order to brin you to (od. @e was !ut to death in the flesh, but made ali"e in the s!irit% Comment: &he !hrase on#e for all% should not be ta3en to mean that 7hrist did not suffer at other times in his life, or as if his sufferin on the #ross was for e"ery indi"idual who has e"er li"ed. 7hrist:s death on the #ross is of sa"in im!ortan#e for all !ostCEaster belie"ers. 1 #n 2:2. and he is the atonin sa#rifi#e for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.% Comment: &he atonin sa#rifi#e for our sins% does not refer to a me#hanism for dealin with sin, but the re#on#iliation with (od that is a"ailable be#ause Jesus endured the #ross. &he for i"eness of sin by ra#e throu h faith that was a"ailable before the #ross, is still a"ailable be#ause 7hrist endured the #ross. John8s use of the word our% shows that he identifies with those to whom he is writin as a fellow sinner who is still able to !ro#laim the os!el by the ra#e of (od. 1 #n 4:10. In this is lo"e, not that we lo"ed (od but that he lo"ed us and sent his Son to be the atonin sa#rifi#e for our sins.% Comment: (od8s lo"e moti"ates his ra#e and mer#y. &o be ra#ious, (od does not need to ma3e a deal, or win a battle, settle a debt or dispute with his creatures, submit to laws, or have anger appeased. 5n the Son's atoning sacrifice, we see the love of acting to bring many to salvation. See also comment on Jn #&#. $e0 13:8. and all the inhabitants of the earth will worshi! it Gthe beastH, e"eryone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the boo3 of life of the Lamb that was slau htered.% 7omment, &his im!lies the sa#rifi#e of Jesus a!!lies to all 7hristians who refuse to worshi! the first beast in John:s "ision, not to all (od:s !eo!le who ha"e e"er li"ed.

You might also like