In 1Corinthians 15:1-5, Paul presents what he considers to be matters of "first importance" in regard to the gospel he preached. Namely, "that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve." But what does "Christ died for our sins" mean?
In "Christian Theology: An Introduction," Alister McGrath writes:
The New Testament, drawing on Old Testament imagery and expectations, presents Christ's death upon the cross as a sacrifice. This approach, which is especially associated with the Letter to the Hebrews, presents Christ's sacrificial offering as an effective and perfect sacrifice, which was to accomplish that which the sacrifices of the Old Testament were only able to intimate, rather than achieve. In particular, Paul's use of the Greek term hilasterion (Ro.3:25) points to a sacrificial interpretation of Christ's death. The idea is developed subsequently within the Christian tradition.
McGrath goes on to quote from Augustine and Athanasius. In fact, the crucifixion of Christ understood as an atoning sacrifice for our sins has
always been the unquestioned doctrine and proud boast of orthodox Christianity. It has always been vital and precious to the Christian's faith and assurance. Charles Wesley's famous words are wonderfully representative:
Arise my soul, arise! Shake off your guilty fears. The bleeding sacrifice on my behalf appears! Before the throne my surety stands, my name is written on his hands! And this glorious understanding of the cross went relatively unchallenged in the history of Christendom until roughly around the 18th century, in the wake of the so-called Enlightenment. To quote McGrath again,
Since the Enlightment, however, there has been a subtle shift in the meaning of the term. A metaphorical extension of meaning has come to be given over the original. Whereas the term originally referred to the ritual offering of slaughtered animals as a specifically religious action, it increasingly came to mean heroic or costly action on the part of individuals, especially giving up of one's life, with no trasncendent reference or expectation.
The term as applied to Jesus' cross, in other words, became a slippery one. But again we should note such ambiguity was not present in the New Testament usage. For Paul, Jesus' death was undoubtedly understood in terms of a "sin offering" (e.g., Ro.8:3; 2Co.5:21; Eph.5:2; cf. 1Co.5:7), in accordance with the sacrificial cultus of the Jewish Scriptures. At essence, it was atonement for sin through bloodshed. G.E. Ladd, in
A Theology of the New Testament, writes,
The sacrificial aspect of Christ's death is seen in the frequent references to his blood. God has made Christ to be the propitiation by his blood (Ro.3:25); we are justifed by his blood (Eph.1:7); we are made near to God by the blood of Christ (Eph.2:13); we have peace through the blood of his cross (Col.1:20).
A moment's reflection suggests that such references are not primarily concerned with the physical blood of Jesus, for, as a matter of fact, Jesus shed very little of his material blood [nevermind Mel Gibson's portrayal]. The idea of shed blood refers to the slaughter of the sacrificial lamb, whose throat was cut and whose blood gushed forth. Nothing like this happened to Jesus. The blood and water (Jn.19:34) that came from Jesus' side did so after he had expired. In the New Testament [and Old, see L. Morris, The Atonement, 1983, p.52], blood means life violently taken away, life offered in sacrifice.
Along thise lines, the author of Hebrews writes unambiguously, "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgivness of sins," (He.9:22).
But not only did Christ's death framed as "sacrifice" become somewhat ambiguous, but its historic understanding became more and more culturally distatesful. Early 20th century liberal theologian and pastor Harry Emerson Fosdick famously called the doctrine of blood atonement "a slaughterhouse religion," a sort of "precivilized barbarity."
Let's be honest, bloody sacrifices are far removed from the antiseptic world of the modern West (and 21st century suburban America in particular). Isn't the demand for "blood" and "propitiation" a violent and crude concept? It smacks of primitive superstition and savagery. It strikes us as 'beneath' any thoughtful and reflective conception of God.
Presenting the historic 'theory' of the atonement, British "emergent" theologian and author, Alan Jones, writes: "Jesus' sacrifice was to appease an angry God. Penal substitution was the name of this vile doctrine." On the other side of the pond, Brian McLaren has said, in mocking the traditional understanding of atonement and divine justice in justification,
God is incapable of forgiving. God can’t forgive unless He punishes somebody in place of the person He was going to forgive. God doesn’t say things to you—Forgive your wife, and then go kick the dog to vent your anger. God asks you to actually forgive…. And there’s a certain sense that, a common understanding of the atonement presents a God who is incapable of forgiving. Unless He kicks somebody else."
Similarly, there have been numerous theologians in recent decades, particularly from the "peace church" (i.e., anabaptistic) traditions, arguing for a "
nonviolent" interpretation of the cross. The notion of "divine violence" in demanding (or worse, inflicting) a blood sacrifice is condemned as destructive both morally and theologically, as ultimately undermining the whole project of God's peaceful kingdom. In Jesus, God suffers violence, it is argued, but He does not inflict it!
As many within this tradition have stated - in opposition to the historical understanding of the cross as a scandalous display of not only God's mercy but justice as well - violence only begets violence. Indeed! In particular, human violence begets divine violence (cf.
Rev.11:18). But the process is not unending. When God acts, it is with finality. Human, sinful violence is answered once and for all by divine, retributive violence. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for life - "the soul that sins shall surely die," (Ez.18:20; Ro.6:23; cf. Ge.2:17). Ghandi said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." God's justice leaves the whole world condemned to die. And of course, this is precisely the biblical picture of our desperate and tragic situation: "in Adam, all die," (1Co.15:22a), for "sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned," (Ro.5:12). But the hope offered in the gospel is life beyond the grave: "in Christ, all will be made alive," (1Co.15:22b; cf. Jn.11:25).
The critical presupposition, then, behind the biblical doctrine of atonement is the lethal (physically and spiritually speaking, cf. Rev.20:12-14) retribution demanded by divine justice, or what Scripture often refers to as
God's wrath. Where this is rejected, the orthodox doctrine of the cross of Christ cannot be sustained. Without it, the severity revealed at Golgotha of both God's indignation and love, it would seem, are hopelessly obscured.
