Ch2 Whether Jesus redeemed us by his crucifixion

 

Fr. McMonigle, vested in his somber black cope, called out in a loud voice, “We adore thee, O Christ, and we bless thee.” All of us children then dropped to our knees and answered in a deafening chorus, “Because by thy holy cross thou hast redeemed the world!” ~Stations of the Cross at Holy Cross Grade School

While the Catholic Church has not officially endorsed any specific soteriology[1], the most popular by far during the last eight hundred years is the theology whereby God forgives all sins due to the merits of Christ’s passion on the cross. During my eight years at Holy Cross Grade School in Euclid, Ohio, I recall vividly how we knelt on the wood floor next to our desks every morning and faced the large crucifix above the blackboard as we recited our morning prayers. On Fridays in Lent, we were herded into the church and confronted with an even more vivid reminder of the drama of our salvation.

The Stations of the Cross consisted in fourteen graphically depicted sufferings of Jesus, which covered the sidewalls of Holy Cross Church. At the beginning of each station, Fr. McMonigle, vested in his somber black cope, called out in a loud voice, “We adore thee, O Christ, and we bless thee.” All of us children then dropped to our knees and answered in a deafening chorus, “Because by thy holy cross thou hast redeemed the world!”

Whether all Christian writers endorsed vicarious atonement

The early Chistian writers had no uniform way of accounting for the efficacy of Jesus’ death.  One has to wait for Anselm of Canterbury before one finds a systematic reliance upon vicarious substitutionary atonement.

Justin Martyr (d. 165 CE) was the first of the philosopher-apologists[2] who was converted by a chance encounter with a Christian in 130 CE.  In his “Dialogue with Trypho,” Justin recalls the whole of this encounter (Dial. 3-9).  Following his conversion, Justin spent thirty years openly advocating the superiority of the Jewish prophets over the Greek and Roman philosophers.  In recounting how the companions of God must of necessity be limited to those who are free of sin and are cultivating a life of virtue, Justin explains the role played by heartfelt contrition as follows:

All who wish for it can obtain mercy from God: and the Scripture [Ps 32] foretells that they shall be blessed, saying, ‘Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputes not sin;’ that is, having repented of his sins, that he may receive remission of them from God. . . .

Athanasius (d. 363), for example, depicted Jesus as entering a wrestling match with the Devil. At the end of the match, Jesus was done in by the Devil, but, given the ferociousness of the match, the Devil was considerably weakened and exhausted–thereby allowing the disciples of Jesus to overcome him in the future (De Incarnatione 8, 24, and 27).

Augustine (d. 430), in his day, depicted the Devil as tempting Jesus, becoming frustrated, and savagely killing his body because he could not touch his soul. Yet, this was a divine plot to lure the Devil into overstepping his proper rights by killing the innocent. God, consequently, was then free to legally penalize the Devil by taking from him those persons whom he had claimed as his own (On Free Will 3.10.31).

Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109) in his masterpiece, Cur Deus Homo [Why God Became Man] made the bold step of formulating a soteriology based on the claim that all sins in every time and in every place were forgiven exclusively due to the passion and death of Jesus. Anselm was a pastor doing pastoral theology. In his day, Anselm was disturbed by the prevailing notion that the Devil was given such an important role in the drama of salvation, and he set about to use the medieval notions of honor and fealty to reconstruct the drama of salvation. In this revised drama, the Devil was no longer the chief antagonist, but it was the offended honor of God the Father that had to be appeased. Anselm’s theological speculation and intellectual persuasiveness, key traits of the on-the-way-to-be-invented scholastic method, proved so compelling that he became the chief contender for accounting for the efficacy of the cross.[3]

The medieval synthesis of Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas[4] (d. 1274), working more than a century later, spoke of the merits and the efficacy associated with the incarnation and the preaching of Jesus—cherished ideas that dominated the first five centuries. When it came time to discuss the passion of Jesus; however, Aquinas entirely slipped into the path of penal substitution that Anselm had promoted before him. Thus, according to Aquinas, “If he [God] had willed to free man from sin without any satisfaction, he would have acted against justice” (III 46, 6, ad 3). This, however, is the foundation stone that Anselm used to insist that God could not forgive any sins whatsoever without the penal substitution of Jesus on the cross.

There are some areas where Aquinas even exceeds Anselm in demonstrating the all-encompassing efficacy of the cross:

• While the middle ages had invented gruesome forms of prolonged torture, Aquinas had no difficulty in affirming that “Christ’s passion was the greatest pain ever suffered” (III 46, 6). Needless to say, this judgment can only be a pious exaggeration for it finds no confirmation in any of the Gospels.
• Given this pious exaggeration, Aquinas uses it to enforce the notion that “Christ’s passion was not only sufficient but superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race” (III 48, 2). Thus, in effect, every sin from the first sin of Adam to the last sin by the last humans on earth at the end of time could be forgiven without exhausting the “superabundant” atonement of Christ. This, too, strikes me as possibly another pious exaggeration.
• Aquinas invokes the notion that the “gates of heaven” were permanently closed following the sin of Adam (Summa Theologica II-II 164, 2). This enforces the logic of Anselm’s universality of sin (both original and actual sins) and the utter inability of anyone to atone for their own sins in order to get into Heaven. But then, due to Jesus’ initiative, salvation finally arrives: “The gate of heaven’s kingdom is thrown open to us through Christ’s passion” (III 49, 5).
• Aquinas’ use of “gates of heaven” needs to be examined. The phrase “gates of heaven”[5] exists nowhere in the entire bible—Jesus never used it; neither did any of the Jewish prophets. Meanwhile, if souls are separated from their bodies at the time of death, then metal gates would have been useless to keep them out. So, it is probable that Aquinas is using “gates of heaven” as a pious metaphor. Nonetheless, Aquinas wants his readers to understand that the “gates of heaven” were closed following the sin of Adam (Summa Theologica II-II 164, 2) and that these gates would not be opened again until right after the death of Jesus on the cross.
• Aquinas argues that not even those Jewish patriarchs “who were sinless” would be able to enter Heaven: “The holy fathers were detained in Hell for the reason that, owing to our first parent’s sin, the approach to the life of glory [in heaven] was not open” (III 52, 5). Notice that Aquinas does not say “suffered in hell.” Aquinas here is referring to the notion of the Church Fathers that the saints and the sinners were “detained in Hades[6].” The source of this confusion will be detailed later.
• At another point, Aquinas says: “The holy fathers [of Israel], by doing works of justice, merited to enter the heavenly kingdom through faith in Christ’s passion . . .” (III 49, 5, ad 1). The deliverance of the Jewish patriarchs, consequently, was not due to their assimilation of the faith of Abraham or to their lifelong fidelity to the way of life that was pleasing to God; rather, it is “through faith and charity, [by which they] were united to Christ’s passion” (III 52, 7).

Aquinas might be on thin ice here. Consider the case when Jesus meets a pious young man who asks him, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” (Matt 19:16). Jesus here is addressed as Διδάσκαλε (“teacher”). From his response, one can surmise that Jesus is being honored as a learned “rabbi.” Jesus responds, “Keep the commandments” (19:17). “Which?” Then Jesus names three negative and two positive commandments of Moses. “I have kept all these; what do I still lack?”(19:20)  Jesus, therefore, raises the bar: “If you wish to be perfect. . . .” (19:21). Aquinas would have expected Jesus to say something about his passion and death, but he does not. Nor does Jesus tell him that his faith in Abraham and Moses is useless and that only Christianity has a saving faith. This, of course, is what Aquinas believed; but, to be sure, it was definitely not what Jesus believed.[7]

Aquinas is not consistent in his description of salvation for the “holy fathers [of Israel].” Earlier in the Summa Theologica, Aquinas identifies the descent of Jesus into hell [Hades] as the cause for the liberation of the holy fathers from that prison: “Christ the Lord descended into hell that, having seized the spoils of the devils, he might conduct into heaven those holy fathers and other pious souls liberated from prison” (ST I 6, 6).^[8] In the final part of the Summa; however, Aquinas says that the holy fathers “merited to enter the heavenly kingdom through faith in Christ’s passion . . .” (ST III 49, 5, ad 1). So, was it Jesus’ descent into hell [Hades] or his dying on the cross—or maybe some combination of both choices—that brings the holy fathers of Israel into heaven?  Aquinas lacks consistency here.[9]

 

Whether Gen 3 Is Correctly Interpreted by the Baltimore Catechism

Here is what the Baltimore Catechism teaches:

45. Q. What evil befell us on account of the disobedience of our first parents?
A. On account of the disobedience of our first parents, we all share in their sin and punishment, as we should have shared in their happiness if they had remained faithful.

46. Q. What other effects followed from the sin of our first parents?
A. Our nature was corrupted by the sin of our first parents, which darkened our understanding, weakened our will, and left in us a strong inclination to evil.

47. Q. What is the sin called which we inherit from our first parents?
A. The sin which we inherit from our first parents is called original sin.

48. Q. Why is this sin called original?
A. This sin is called original because it comes down to us from our first parents, and we are brought into the world with its guilt on our soul.

49. Q. Does this corruption of our nature remain in us after original sin is forgiven?
A. This corruption of our nature and other punishments remain in us after original sin is forgiven.

For an extended examination of Gen 2-3 over and against Tertullian’s ideological reading of the text, see Milavec, Eve as the Pioneer of Adam’s Salvation (2016).  A free study-copy of this book can be found here:

Eve as Pioneer of Adam’s Salvation = <https://payhip.com/b/FRny>

 

Here are the key points examined in this study:

 

1. Traditional theology speaks of Eve as being deceived by the “devil” who was bent upon the destruction of Adam. The “serpent” described in the text, however, is never associated with the “devil” within the entire book of Genesis. So something is wrong here.

2. When examined more closely, the “serpent” functions as a spirit-guide within ancient Middle Eastern culture. Far from deceiving Eve, this “serpent” is assuredly a truth-teller: “You will not die [when you eat this fruit]; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:5-6 NRSV). And, according to the text, this is exactly what happens.

3. Adam, meanwhile, has been telling Eve that God said, “You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die” (Gen 3:3). When Eve touches the fruit, however, nothing happens. Adam clearly is mistaken. So, she eats it. And the eating has wondrous effects. Thus, Eve, with the help of the serpent, exposes the errors of Adam on both counts.

4. Eve and Adam are expelled from the Garden. According to the prevailing theology of the churches, this expulsion takes place due to God abhorrence of their grave sin [the “original sin”]. The text itself provides quite another explanation: “The LORD God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever,’ therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden” (Gen 3:22-23).

5. In the Garden, God has planted not one but two empowering trees: “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” and “the tree of life.” God intended his children to be mortal. The text specifies this intention clearly, “You are [made out of] dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen 3:19). Hence, God expels his children from the Garden, not due to some supposed “sin” but in order to insure that the “tree of life” remains out-of-reach.

6. The text says that God assigns to a “cherubim” the task of “guard[ing] the way to the tree of life” (Gen 3:24). Here again the text indicates clearly that “sin” was not an issue here; rather, protection of the “tree of life” was God’s primary concern.

7. It is instructive that Eve and Adam lived nearly a thousand years. If we trust the bible when it teaches us that a long life is a sign of God’s blessing, then we have to conclude that Eve and Adam were wondrously blessed with long lives. In fact, just before leaving Eden, God gave both his children a very important gift. Maybe you know what that gift might be. Take a guess.

Whether Jews know forgiveness apart from Jesus

Without saying it in so many words, the synthesis of Thomas Aquinas takes the entire tradition of the Hebrew Scriptures regarding the readiness of God to forgive and turns it on its head. Consider, for example, Psalm 32:

Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Happy are those to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. While I kept silence, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. Then I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,” and you forgave the guilt of my sin (Ps 32:1-5).

What one discovers here is the assurance of forgiveness for those who turn back to the Lord and acknowledge their sin. Quite independent of any question of the efficacy of sacrificial rites or of acts of atonement (by oneself or by another), Israel has always believed that the act of teshuvah (“turning back”) ensures God’s forgiveness.[10] The classical Christian tradition as formulated by Anselm and Aquinas, however, would say the psalmist was sorely mistaken.[11]

In the Hebrew Scriptures one finds hundreds of instances wherein Jewish sins are forgiven. In the case of King David, one remembers how the prophet Nathan confronted the king with the parable that served to expose his treachery in having Uriah killed in battle such that he could lay claim to his wife (2 Sam 12:2-4). David responds quickly and unambiguously, “I have sinned against the Lord” (2 Sam 12:13). Once David has confessed his guilt, then the prophet offers God’s consolation: “Now the Lord has put away your sin. . .” (2 Sam 12:13b). No one has to offer a sacrifice or to suffer an inhuman whipping to enable “the Lord” to pardon David’s sins.

Whether the Gospels speak of forgiveness apart from Jesus

In the Gospels one finds a fierce challenge to the theology of the atoning death. When the Gospels speak of John the Baptizer “proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3 and par.), this accords well with the prevailing Jewish tradition of forgiveness following upon repentance. Yet no mention of Jesus’ death is made in this place. Later, even Jesus said to the man who was a paralytic, “Friend, your sins are forgiven you” (Luke 5:21). In this instance, if Jesus had studied his Baltimore Catechism, he should have said, “Friend, your sins will be forgiven once the Son of Man is lifted up on the cross.”

As for Jesus’ parables of the kingdom, none of them make any mention of the fall of Adam in the Garden and the impossibility of attaining forgiveness of sins prior to Jesus’ death. In fact, none of them focus upon the passion of Jesus as opening the gates of Heaven either.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son goes to the extreme of having the son who squandered half of his father’s resources with loose women return home in order to find his father running to him and pardoning him even before he gets a chance to confess his failings. According to the terms of this parable, the son feels that his sins are unpardonable, and he can only expect, at best, to get a job: “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands” (Luke 15:18f).

The thrust of Jesus’ parable is to demonstrate that the love of our Father in heaven exceeds the weight of our sense of being beyond forgiveness. In its essence, Jesus’ parable dramatizes the Jewish notion that God is our loving Father; and, accordingly, he has always been ready to forgive his children. Parables found among the rabbis capture this same lesson.[12] When all is said and done, therefore, the classical atonement theories would have to end up declaring that Jesus was sorely mistaken—no sins can be forgiven unless there is an appropriate amount of suffering involved.

How Jews find abundant forgiveness without Jesus

E.P. Sanders, more than any other scholar, has given a long hard look at the host of distortions that crowd into Christian literature. Some Christians, therefore, would try to reconcile the problems within the classical tradition by emphasizing that God is always ready to forgive but that atonement‑-understood as the penal suffering due to every sin‑-can never be made without the merits of Christ. Within the rabbinic tradition, one finds various instances wherein atonement is granted: (a) “repentance effects atonement,” (b) “the Day of Atonement effects atonement,” (c) “death effects atonement,” (d) “almsgiving effects atonement,” and (d) “chastisements (in this life or in Gehenna) effect atonement.”[13] In none of these cases, however, is atonement understood as “automatic” or “earned.” It was always a graced occasion:

Their way of phrasing the sentences about atonement may mislead readers into thinking that they conceived the process of atonement to be automatic. The Rabbis doubtless had confidence that God would forgive those who did what was appropriate for atonement, but they did not suppose that atonement would be effective apart for the reconciling forgiveness of God. They pictured God as always ready to forgive, and so had no need of saying `repentance atones if God chooses to forgive.’[14]

Recovering God’s grief at the death of his Son

Atonement theories have the effect of wiping away the shame of the cross and of presenting Jesus’ death as the brightest moment in salvation history. According to the Synoptics, however, Jesus’ death is presented as the darkest event: “From the sixth hour, there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour” (Matt 27:45 and par.). Such “darkness” points to lamentation. The prophet Amos, for example, speaks of the darkness with which the Lord will cover the earth on the last day as “turn[ing] your feasts into mourning and all your songs into lamentation . . . like the mourning for [the death of] an only son” (8:10). Robert Gundry cites a long list of parallels.[15]

Popular theology has sometimes associated this “darkness” with “the fearful concept of Jesus `bearing,’ even actually `becoming’ our sin.”[16] This interpretation of the “darkness,” however, is determined by the projection of atonement motifs into the passion narrative: “Nowhere in Mark is Jesus said to bear the sins of others; so, Mark’s audience could hardly be expected to interpret the darkness thus.”[17]

At the moment of Jesus’ death, my childhood Catechism presents the image of the gates of heaven being thrown open after having been locked ever since the sin of Adam. According to the Synoptics, however, it is the temple veil that is rent in two “from top to bottom” (Matt 27:51 and par.).

In most instances, this rending of the veil has been interpreted to signal that the crimes of the priests were so grievous that God abandoned the holy of holies‑-tearing through the temple veil as he exited. Such an interpretation fails to take into account that the disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem went to the temple daily to pray and to teach (Acts 2:46, 3:1, 5:42). At no time do they draw attention to the “absence” of the Lord.

Other scholars have suggested that this tearing “originally represented Jesus’ death” and later became a “supernatural portent of Jesus’ deity.”[18] But why represent Jesus’ death symbolically when, in actual fact, the event itself was just narrated?

Hebrews makes an oblique reference to “the new and living way that he opened for us through the [temple] curtain” (Heb 10:20), but it would be risky to transpose the theology of Hebrews back into the Synoptics.

Finally, in an unexpected moment, I chanced upon an explanation by David Daube,[19] a Jewish scholar. The moment I heard it, all the clues of the text snapped into place:

One has to be aware of the modes of expressing grief then current among the Jewish people. When a father of Jesus’ day would hear of the death of a son, he would invariably rend his garment by grabbing it at the neck and tearing it from top to bottom [see, e.g., Gen 27:34, Job 1:20, b. Moed Qatqan 25a, b. Menahot 48a]. This is precisely the gesture suggested by the particulars of Matthew’s text: “The veil of the Temple as torn in two from top to bottom” (27:51). In truth, God is Spirit. Symbolically, however, the presence of God within the holy of holies was rendered secure from prying eyes by the veil which surrounded that place. As such, the veil conceals the “nakedness” of God. It is this “garment” which grief-stricken Father of Jesus tears from top to bottom when he hears the final death-cry of his beloved son. Even for the Father, therefore, the death of Jesus is bitter tragedy and heartfelt grief.[20]

This interpretation has the merit of paying attention to the form of the tearing (“from top to bottom”) and of harmonizing completely with the “darkness” that preceded it. Both symbols, consequently, serve to signal to the Jewish reader the grief and the rage of God at the death of his Son. At the same time, these symbols serve as a point of departure for reeducating ourselves as to how we might recapture our own suppressed rage and indignation[21] at the brutal and needless suffering of Jesus. Finally, this reading of the passion allowed me to weep for Jesus—tears that had been blocked so long by a theology bent upon sugarcoating his death.

Recent criticism of substitutionary atonement

Within the last twenty years, the soteriology of the atoning death has fallen upon hard times.[22] To begin with, God’s threat of death (Gen 2:17) directed toward his own children in the Garden strikes modern ears as a cruel and excessive punishment for a single infraction of eating the forbidden fruit.[23] Furthermore, studies by Herbert Haag, demonstrate that “the idea that Adam’s descendants are automatically sinners because of the sin of their ancestor . . . is foreign to Holy Scripture.”[24] As Martin Buber would have it, the descendants of Adam sinned “as Adam sinned and not because Adam sinned.”[25] Furthermore, the notion that forgiveness for the guilty must be achieved at the price of torturing the innocent runs the risk of supporting a very dubious and unbiblical notion of divine injustice. Accordingly, Stephen Finlan notes quite pointedly in his book-length examination of atonement theories in the Christian Scriptures: “It does us no good to perceive Jesus as heroic if we are forced to view God as sadistic.”[26]

• Richard Rohr, meanwhile, in his retreats and homilies, tells his hearers: “As our own Franciscan scholar John Duns Scotus taught, Jesus did not need to die. There was no debt to be paid. Jesus died to reveal the nature of the heart of God.”[27]
• Feminist theologians, for their part, alert us that classical soteriology espouses a sadistic case of “divine child abuse.”[28]

• Edward Schillebeeckx, O.P., in equally telling terms, concludes his lengthy study of the topic of suffering by saying, “First of all, we must say that we are not redeemed thanks to the death of Jesus but despite it.”[29]

Parallel critiques within Protestant circles

• Wolfhart Pannenberg, a leading Lutheran theologian, notes that “Anselm’s conception . . . was also taken over by the dogmatics of Protestant orthodoxy in the seventeenth century, although its primary concern is foreign to the authentically evangelical understanding of salvation.”[30]

• John T. Carroll and Joel B. Green, meanwhile, conclude their extensive study of Paul with this caution: “Paul uses an almost inexhaustible series of metaphors[31] to represent the significance of Jesus’ death, and penal substitution (at least as popularly defined) is not one of them.”[32]

• By way of measuring the pastoral impact of the atonement theory, a recent Protestant study closes with a strong cautionary note:

• “We believe that the popular fascination with and commitment to penal substitutionary atonement has had ill effects in the life of the church in the United States and has little to offer the global church and mission by way of understanding or embodying the message of Jesus Christ.”[33]

Why Rabbis distrust the substitutionary atonement of Jesus

• Rabbi Tovia Singer, in response to a Christian inquiry, ended up reminding his questioner that, after all is said and done, the notion that Jesus’ death on the cross was a “sacrifice” would have been abhorrent to God “since the Jewish people were strictly prohibited from offering human sacrifices under any circumstances.”[34]

• To this, one might also add that, in Jewish circles, any true sacrifice had to be offered by a Jewish priest in the Jerusalem temple.[35] On these grounds alone, one can be certain that whenever Paul speaks of Jesus’ death[36] as a sacrifice, he is using metaphors that cannot and must not be taken literally. In the Letter to the Hebrews, this Jewish-Christian treatise fully acknowledges that “Now if he [Jesus] were on earth, he would not be a priest at all” (8:4, 7:14). When it comes time to choose a suitable “sacrifice,” Jesus repeats the theme of Jer 7:22[37]: “Sacrifices and offerings you [my Lord] have not desired . . . ; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure” (Heb 10:5-6).

• Rabbi Gerald Sigal speaks for contemporary Jews as follows:

God forgave sin before Jesus’ appearance and continues to forgive without any assistance from the latter. It is no wonder that many centuries before the time of Jesus, Isaiah declared: “Israel is saved by the Lord with an everlasting salvation”? (Isa 45:17) . . . . This is true at all times and in all places.[38]

 

Conclusions

Once the weight of all this evidence is acknowledged, then the following becomes evident:

The Jewish Scriptures repeatedly speak of God’s readiness to forgive sins independent of Jesus. Hence, any preaching or teaching to the effect that every and all sins of all persons everywhere[39] can be forgiven only due to the merits accumulated by the death of Jesus must be exposed as a false faith based upon a false theology bent upon misrepresenting Jesus’ death and totally misrepresenting Judaism as well.

Christians honor Jesus as the Son of God who reliably and truthfully expresses mind and the heart of our Father in heaven. Substitutionary atonement theories, when examined closely, grossly misrepresent[40] our Father in Heaven (a) as frozen in unforgiveness prior to the brutal death of his Beloved Son and (b) as supporting a false theology whereby the suffering of the innocent one is the necessary price for forgiving the guilty. Such theories obscure the teaching and the practice of the rabbis. Such theories obscure the teaching and the practice of Rabbi Jesus as well.

 

The notion that the gates of Heaven were closed beginning with the sin of Adam and that they remained closed until the death of Jesus cannot be confirmed.[41] Needless to say, there is no direct experiential evidence of this. Biblical evidence, meanwhile, is sparce and questionable. Most especially, however, such a notion is inherently anti-Jewish because it tacitly denies and discredits the experience of Jews as receiving the grace of divine forgiveness in nearly all times and in nearly all places.

As an act of honesty and humility, Christians need to explore the possibility of admitting to themselves and to the children of Abraham and Sarah that, just as Christians unfairly implicated all Jews in the death of Jesus; so, too, they have unfairly implicated the suffering and death of Jesus in the forgiveness of Jewish sins. Thomas Aquinas, consequently, must be revised along with all other catechetical materials so as to acknowledge that “God forgave sin before Jesus’ appearance and [he] continues to forgive [Jewish sins] without any assistance from the latter” (as cited above).

When Christians use their theology of the suffering and death of Jesus to cultivate a mystique of suffering and try to sugarcoat the suffering of others, one comes into contact with the ugly dark-side of substitutionary atonement. Here are a few examples that illustrate the horrific insensitivity of some prominent and highly-educated Catholics in the face of the Nazi extermination of six million Jews during the Shoah (also referred to as “the Holocaust”):

Case #1: Cardinal John O’Connor, the Catholic Archbishop of New York, had this to say as part of his reflections following his visit to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Museum in Israel:

The crucifixion and its enormous power continue mystically and spiritually in this world in our day and will continue to the end of time. Christ . . . continues to suffer in his Body, the Church. . . . And this suffering has a purpose and an effect, as does ours if we conjoin it with his, if we “offer it up”. . . . [Consequently] if the suffering of the crucifixion was infinitely redemptive [for us Christians], [then]the suffering of the Holocaust, potentially conjoined with it, is incalculably redemptive [for Jews](47-48).

Archbishop O’Connor, mesmerized by the infinite redemptive sufferings of Christ, undoubtedly thought he was honoring Jewish suffering in the concentration camps as “incalculably redemptive” for Jews in the same way that the sufferings of Christ are “infinitely redemptive” for Christians. Survivors of the death camps and their relatives (see) were neither flattered nor consoled[42] by the Archbishop’s crude attempt to extend a “bizarre” Christian atonement theology to sugar-coat the horrendous evil inflicted upon European Jews by the Nazis.

Case #2: Sorry to say, even John Paul II flirted with applying a mystique of suffering to the Shoah. When addressing the Jews of Warsaw on 14 June 1987, he spoke to them as follows:

We [Christians] believe in the purifying power of suffering. The more atrocious the suffering, the greater the purification. The more painful the experiences, the greater the hope. . . (cited in Jacobs:53).

A year later, while visiting Mauthausen Concentration Camp, John Paul II further observed that “the Jews [killed here] enriched the world[43] by their suffering, and their death was like a grain that must fall into the earth in order to bear fruit” (cited in Jacobs:53).

Such language is painful to hear and is outright blasphemous for most Jews. Does a Jewish father whose daughter has been conscripted to provide sexual favors to the German troops in the front lines tell his daughter that her suffering will purify her love, purify her body, purify the Nazi ideology? Does a Jewish mother tell her little son who is about to be separated from her and to die a slow starvation in the Nazi transport trains that the more painful his experience, the greater hope he ought to have? Hope for what? Even popes, one can see, sometimes make injurious and jaundiced remarks when blinded by unexamined and unethical doctrines surrounding the sufferings of Christ.

Edward Schillebeeckx painstakingly researched the whole gamut of biblical references pertaining to the suffering and death of Jews (Jesus included). By way of summarizing his findings, he wrote:

God and suffering are diametrically opposed. . . . We can accept that there are certain forms of suffering that enrich our humanity. . . . However, there is an excess of suffering and evil in our history. . . . There is too much unmerited and senseless suffering. . . . But in that case we cannot look for a divine reason for the death of Jesus either. Therefore, first of all, we have to say that we are not redeemed thanks to the death of Jesus but despite it (1980:695, 724f, 729).

Whether it is Jews being tortured by perverse medical experiments in the camps or Jesus tortured on a Roman cross deliberately designed to humiliate and prolong death, there is no divine logic that can sanction such horrors. God cries out with the victims and tears his garments in grief as he does so. Any other would-be G-d cannot be said to be in solidarity with innocent victims.

Observe, Judge, and Act

Q1. Up until this point of time, the message given to you by loving parents and by your religion teachers is that “We adore thee and bless thee, O Lord [Jesus Christ], because by thy holy cross thou had redeemed the world.”  This message has been repeated so often and has been enforced by loving teachers to the point that “there can be no doubting that this is exactly the greatest gift that Jesus Christ offers us.”  Think back to the moment in your life to when this was your most precious joy and your salvation.  What feeling tones did this leave you with?

Q2. At some times and places, however, you were perhaps doubtful and dissatisfied with this notion that the three-hours of suffering on the cross was able to atone for all the sins of world, beginning with the betrayal of Adam and Eve and passing through time when the last human being on earth sinned and died.  Think back to the moment in your life to when this was not a joy and salvation but a doubt and a burden.  Describe one of these moments.  What feeling tones did this doubt and burden leave you with?

Q3. In Ch2 of this religious autobiography, Aaron has explained how the forgiveness of King David’s sins demonstrates that God has always been open to pardoning those who are remorseful.  Aaron further explains that the parables of Jesus never celebrate the suffering of Jesus as necessary for forgiveness.  Quite to the contrary, the father in the Parable of the Prodigal Son jumps to greet his returning son and does not give him any chance to say, “I am not worthy to be your son.”  The mystery of divine forgiveness does not turn around “suffering and satisfaction” as taught by our religion teachers. What the medieval supporters of atonement had forgotten was the generous and abiding love of a father who thinks of his son fondly even while his son foolishly squanders his inheritance and foolishly does things that he foolishly thinks are unpardonable.  Do you share Aaron’s protest against the suffering death as the price for forgiveness?  How so?  Where does Aaron go wrong?  Where does Aaron hit the nail on the head?

Q4.  No one can change her mind without first of all having slept on the evidence.  The process of deep sleep allows one to forget the non-essentials that are cluttering your mind and feelings.  Therefore, I urge you not to commit yourself one way of the other until you sleep on it for a few nights.  Where has your mind and heart settled after three nights?

Q5.  After a week, open your heart and mind to a trusted and informed guide who is willing to hear the depths of your soul.  Share your whole process of finding flaws in your original position.  How and why have you undertaken to study this issue more deeply.  What new evidence has jumped out at you and how has it changed you?  Give yourself forty days to embrace the position of Aaron.  Some will find the temptations of Satan in Aaron’s position.  Others will find a troublesome gap between “the loving father” and “the just judge.”  Where does Jesus stand?  Where does Paul stand?  Where do you stand?

Q6.  Evangelical Protestants are prone to exaggerate their unworthiness and Catholics are prone to exaggerate the sinlessness of Jesus.  Consider the following Quora discussion on “Whether Jesus was sinless”:

Dick Harfield, professional theologian from Sydney, Australia.

• If we can define some sins we can all agree to be sins, then it could be possible to reach a consensus on whether Jesus sinned. If the gospel events occurred as described, [then] I suggest one sin would be wilful destruction of property:

1. When Jesus is described as sending the demons into a herd of around 2000 pigs who drowned in the Sea of Galilee as a result (Mark 5:13).
2. When Jesus is described as cursing the fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season. This also involves the sin of [irrational] anger.

Jody Gattey, student and teacher of the Bible for 45 years.

The book of Hebrews in the New Testament tells us that Jesus was tempted in every way that we are, but yet He did not sin (Heb. 4:15). It also says [this] for this reason, He understands what we go through and He is able to help us to resist temptations when we lean on Him (Heb. 2:18).

He is the only man who has walked on earth who is sinless.[44] That is why He was the perfect and acceptable sacrifice on the cross–the spotless Lamb of God who paid the price for our sins, and because of His sinlessness He became the only acceptable mediator between God and mankind.

Benjamin Medlen·

When one examines the Gospels and compares the stories with the commandments of the Torah (Hebrew Bible) this doctrine of a “sinless Jesus” is not supported. Instead we find that Jesus in fact violated a number of Biblical commandments:

1. Procreation

“Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). This obligates a person to marry and have children. Jesus remained single his entire life. He also encouraged others to disobey this commandment by recommending celibacy (Matthew 19:12).

2. Sabbath Observance

“The seventh day is a Sabbath to the L-rd your G-d. Do not do any work” (Exodus 20:9). Jesus defended his “hungry” disciples when they plucked grain on the Sabbath. This is agricultural labor and is unquestionably a violation of the Sabbath.

Christian apologists insist that Jesus was revealing the true meaning of the Sabbath when he said, “The Sabbath is not made for man; man is made for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).” [Benjamin fails to quote the text correctly. The text says that “The Sabbath was made for man” in the sense that not working is beneficial for refreshing the laborer and his animals.] This is untenable. . . .

If Jesus meant that they were starving and their lives were threatened, the Gospel account must be fictional. Talmudic (Pharisee) law agrees this would be a reason to violate the Sabbath (Talmud Yoma ch.8). The Rabbis would not have quarreled with Jesus if this were the case. If there was no danger to life, then plucking grain violates the Sabbath and the apostles were probably guilty of theft for eating from a field not theirs.  [Plucking by hand was permitted (Deut 23:25).]

3. Not Honoring Parents

“Honor your father and mother” (Exodus 20:12). Jesus ignored his mother when she came to visit. “Someone told him, ‘your mother and brother are standing outside, wanting to speak to you’ He replied to him, ‘who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ Pointing to his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers” (Matthew 12:47-49).

Jesus caused his parents a whole day of worrying. His parents returned from Jerusalem, assuming Jesus was with them. In fact, Jesus stayed in Jerusalem without informing his parents. They returned to Jerusalem to look for him. “His mother said to him, ‘Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you?’ (Luke 2:48).”  [It is impossible to imagine that Jesus was without guilt when he was so engrossed with the Torah discussions in the Jerusalem temple as to create panic for his father and mother who could not locate him for three whole days. His mother said to him, “Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been searching for you in great anxiety” (Luke 2:48). I take this as a sharp rebuke that is rightly deserved. Jesus’ self-defense, “Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house” (Luke 2:49), holds no water. A twelve-year-old boy is expected to stay with his parents during Passover when over a million visitors have crowded into Jerusalem. Should he deviate from this, then he would be obliged to keep his parents informed as to where he plans to go and what he plans to do. And, to be relieved of anxiety on both sides, plans would also need to be made as to where and when their teenager would meet up with them at the appointed time. As a parent myself who once lost his child in a crowded mall, I have no doubt that Jesus sinned on this occasion. The pain he caused his frantic parents was unnecessary and sinful.  Luke seemingly fails to notice this.]

 

 

 

 

Endnotes

¹ Soteriology seeks to make sense of how God offers salvation to his/her people. Jesus and his immediate disciples anticipated the coming of God from heaven to gather the Jewish exiles and to establish his kingdom on earth. The Church Fathers preferred to think that the divine Logos had become human in order to establish that humans could, by successive stages, attain to that divinization to which they were destined by God. During the medieval period, Christians were preoccupied with sin‑-Adam failed God in the Garden and accordingly, all his children were conceived in sin and destined for eternal damnation. Jesus, the Son of God, however, became human such that a human could make complete satisfaction by his death on the cross for all the sins of the world. Whether God is envisioned as bringing the kingdom or as restoring human access to divinization or as providing satisfaction for sins makes a big difference in how God is understood and how Jesus relates to God and to our salvation. Interested readers might read Karen Armstrong, A History of God (New York: Ballantine Books, 1993).

[2] The Dialogue with Trypho is a discussion in which Justin tries to prove the truth of Christianity to a learned Jew named Trypho. Justin attempts to demonstrate that a new covenant has superseded the old covenant of God with the Jewish people; that Jesus is both the messiah announced by the Old Testament prophets and the preexisting logos through whom God revealed himself in the Scriptures; and that the gentiles have been chosen to replace Israel as God’s chosen people. URL=<https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Justin-Martyr>

[3] In both Catholic and Protestant circles today, some form of substitutionary atonement is generally heralded as the principal mode for accounting for the importance of Jesus as our redeemer. Only in the Eastern Orthodox Churches does one find a primacy being given to the incarnational theologies of the Church Fathers and the continued insistence that “Christ became human in order that humans might become divine.”

[4] While the late middle ages saw the creation of numerous dogmatic syntheses, the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas gradually came to be preferred in most Catholic circles. The Roman Catechism produced in 1568 following the Council of Trent was thus massively dependent upon Aquinas. The Baltimore Catechism produced in the United States in 1858, in its turn, was a brief version of the Roman Catechism that served for the religious formation of American Catholics for four generations prior to Vatican II. In this latter Catechism, the penal atonement theory of Anselm is presented as the sole explanatory matrix for delineating Jesus’ identity and purpose. Protestant catechisms invariably assimilated variations of this and, accordingly, have also focused their attention upon Jesus’ death on behalf of our sins.

[5] “Gates” can be used figuratively for the glory of a city (Isaiah 3:26; 14:31; Jeremiah 14:2; Lamentations 1:4; contrast Psalms 87:2), but whether the military force, the rulers or the people is in mind cannot be determined. In Matthew 16:18 “gates of Hades” (not “hell”) may refer to the hosts (or princes) of Satan, but a more likely translation is `the gates of the grave (which keep the dead from returning) shall not be stronger than it.’ The meaning in Judges 5:8,11 is very uncertain, and the text may be corrupt. [Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. “Entry for ‘GATE'”. “International Standard Bible Encyclopedia”. 1915.] URL=<https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/gate/ >.

[6] The original notion of Hades was the gathering place of all those who had died. There was no one to judge the dead.  Hence, saints and sinners awaited the final judgment. Then, quite gradually, Hades was emptied of the saints who had been taken with Jesus into Heaven at the end of three days. With the saints removed, Hades increasingly became the medieval hell wherein the damned were made to suffer in anticipation of the final judgment.

[7] My comments here have made a deliberate attempt to identify “soft spots” in Aquinas’ presentation of the salvific efficacy of the death of Jesus. Hands down, Aquinas was a gifted interpreter and reinterpreter of the Gospel. But every gifted theologian is prone to accept without question a certain number of unbiblical notions that were popular in their day. Among these notions, one might expect to find some pious exaggerations and anti-Jewish superstitions which need to be exposed.  I myself was a passionate advocate of Thomas Aquinas during my first ten years of teaching seminarians.  But then, as I became aware of more and more “soft spots” in Aquinas, I quickly moderated my blanket approval of Aquinas.  There is so much in biblical spirituality and in Vatican II theology that is not present in Aquinas.  Hence, the ST should not be overly relied upon.  And, when it is used, its limitations and flaws need to be explored along with its positive contributions.  Otherwise, we risk stagnating the faith and mission of the Church in 1274 CE.

[8] The contemporary Catechism of the Catholic Church repeats this message describing it as follows: “the Gospel was preached even to the dead” (sec. 632 & 634 following 1 P 4:6). This event is interpreted in universal and eschatological terms: “This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time [three days] but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men [women] of all times and places . . .” (sec. 634).

[9] How could one account for this inconsistency?  Could it be that the efficacy of Jesus’ descent into Hades was argued for early in his writing of ST 1 but, much, much later (a thousand pages later), in ST 3 when it came time to discuss the efficacy of the death of Jesus, Aquinas, having favorably read Cur Deus Homo, now argues that faith in the atoning death of Jesus enables the Jewish patriarchs to enter heaven?  Or just maybe Aquinas wants to have it both ways.  He wants to endorse the efficacy of the descent into Hades—a position that originates among the second and third century Church Fathers; and, at the same time, he wants to endorse the efficacy of the death on the cross—a position that originated recently with Anselm but has yet to get the approval of an overwhelming majority of the medieval theologians.  This seems to be a more satisfying solution.  Aquinas lived at a time when it was impossible to dismiss the older theology; yet, the newer theology of the cross was steadily gaining adherents, so it would have been rash to (a) entirely dismiss it, just as it would be rash to (b) prematurely declare it as the all-time winner.  Today, there is no contest.  Based on the number of publications produced in the last twenty years, I would estimate that 80% endorse some form of the substitutionary atonement theology of the cross. Yet, the reader will discover that substitutionary atonement has fallen into hard times. A vocal minority of pastors and a substantial minority of theologians are now becoming aware of the hazards of most or all substitutionary atonement theology.  You will shortly discover that I count myself in this “substantial minority.”  My unique position is that substitutionary atonement is unbiblical, is opposed by Jesus, and it is overwhelmingly anti-Jewish. In its place, I develop an alternative theology of the death of Jesus (a) that is endorsed by Jesus in the Synoptics, (b) that validates the divine forgiveness found in the Hebrew Scriptures, and (c) that is fiercely endorsed by the rabbinic tradition practiced by Jews.

[10] E.P. Sanders, after making an extensive study of this topic, summarizes by noting that “the universal view [of the rabbis] is that every individual Israelite who indicates his [her] intention to remain in the covenant by repenting, observing the Day of Atonement and the like, will be forgiven for all his transgressions” (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 182).

[11] Within Judaism, sins were understood as freely forgiven by God. According to Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo, God was not free to forgive sins unless some suitable satisfaction was made for the loss of honor inflicted on the deity by sinners. While the early Church Fathers would have understood sorrow and penance as serving to promote such satisfaction, Anselm argued that such deeds done by humans were already expected by God and, hence, incapable of restoring the lost honor that was his due. In an absolute sense, therefore, Anselm argued that no sin (along with the satisfaction due to sin) could be forgiven without appealing to and transferring the merits of Christ’s death on the cross.

When taken to an extreme, some Christians misuse the atonement theology by way of rigidly denying that they can help themselves and can ask for help from persons other than Jesus.  Meanwhile, they completely fall into trap of allowing “that I am a sinner” and “that I disgust God”—end of story.  So, they run to Jesus and to him alone.  “Heal me Jesus!”  “Save me from Hell!”  If Jesus does not step in and entirely take over their life, then they abase themselves further and intensify their total reliance upon him.  This leads to an unnatural and unhealthy over-dependence on God combined with a psychotic negation of their personal agency in cooperating with God’s grace.

[12] To date, there have been many fine studies of how the rabbis taught in parables in much the same way as did Jesus. Especially noteworthy are the following: Harvey K. McArthur, et al., They Also Taught in Parables (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990); Clemens Thoma, et al., eds., Parable and Story in Judaism and Christianity (New York: Paulist, 1989); Brad H. Young, Jesus and His Jewish Parables (New York: Paulist, 1989).

[13] E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 158.

[14] Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 161.

[15] Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1993) 963.

[16] John R.W. Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1986) 79.

[17] Gundry, Mark 964.

[18] Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1994) 575.

[19] David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athone Press, 1956) 23-26.

[20] Aaron Milavec, To Empower as Jesus Did: Acquiring Spiritual Power Through Apprenticeship (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1982) 57.

[21] After writing this, I experienced, first hand, the rage and indignation of Kathy, a Catholic teenager, upon viewing the film, “Jesus Christ Superstar.” She stomped out of that theater visibly angry. She told her mother how she hated “the bully” (Caiaphas) and that “stupid queer” (Annas) who “hurt Jesus.” In the face of her fury, her mother calmly proceeded to explain to her how it was necessary that Jesus should suffer in order to atone for our sins. At that moment, I saw clearly how Anselm had so thoroughly subverted even the ability of this mother to sympathize with the appropriate rage of her daughter. Yet, how would Anselm explain to this single child how such a disgusting crime was part of God’s eternal plan to redeem the world? If we ourselves are prohibited from using an evil means to accomplish a good end, how can our Father continue to be revered when he is reputed to sanction the torture of the innocent in order to forgive the guilty? For further details, see Milavec, “Is God Arbitrary and Sadistic?”

[22] The theological, biblical, and pastoral deficiencies of the substitutionary atonement is an immense topic. In what follows, I can only touch the surface. Readers who want an in-depth and very readable introduction to the topic might want to go to David Heim, “Rethinking the Death of Jesus,” URL=<http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3167>

[23] Some of the early Church Fathers (Irenaeus, Origen) regarded Adam and Eve as literally children growing up in their Parent’s Garden. Being children, the “fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 2:17) was naturally inaccessible to them; yet, God planted this tree in the middle of the Garden because he wanted them to eat of it when he discerned that they were ready. As often happens, however, children rush ahead and seize adult ways prematurely. According to Origen, Eve’s initiative merely represents the well-known case that girls mature earlier than boys. The serpent in this narrative is not what will later be identified as Satan in disguise (Wis 2:27; Rev 20:2) but the wisdom figure of ancient cultures. The serpent, accordingly, reveals quite rightly to Eve that by touching the fruit, she will not die—on the contrary, “God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened [so as to discern good and evil] and you will be like God” (Gen 3:5). They ate and “the eyes of both were opened” (Gen 3:7)—just as the serpent revealed. The fact that they notice, for the first time, that they are naked only demonstrates that they are indeed seeing with adult eyes (and have lost the innocence of childhood).

Eve and Adam are expelled from the Garden. According to the prevailing theology of the churches, this expulsion takes place due to God abhorrence of their grave sin [the “original sin”]. The text itself provides quite another explanation: “The LORD God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever,’ therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden” (Gen 3:22-23).

For an extended examination of Gen 2-3 over and against Tertullian’s ideological reading of the text, see Milavec, Eve as the Pioneer of Adam’s Salvation (2016).

In so doing, God, acting like a good father, gets Adam ready for the burdens of farming, and Eve is prepared for the burdens of childbearing. In brief, Adam and Eve enter the adult world wherein their Parent will no longer do everything from them.

This reading of Genesis (which prevails today within the Eastern Orthodox Churches and within many Jewish circles as well) captures much more of the deep nuances of the ancient narrative than do those later readings that imagine Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan and committed a grievous sin worthy of death. Anselm regarded the crime as one of unpardonable treason since the children of God had taken the side of God’s enemy against him. In Anselm’s day, the punishment for treason was death, not only for the guilty participants in the crime, but for their children as well. It thus seemed natural that the death penalty imposed (‘spiritual death”) fell not only upon our first parents but upon all their future children as well.

[24] Herbert Haag, Is Original Sin in Scripture? (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1969) 106.

[25] Martin Buber, Two Types of Faith (New York: Macmillan, 1951) 158.

[26] Stephen Finlan, Problems with Atonement (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2005) 97. Finlan’s citation here captures the critique of Michael Winter. Ever since 2005, Finlan has been one of the most formidable challengers to substitutionary penal atonement. I regret to note, however, that in some quarters this has led to a push-back whereby older forms of atonement have been resurrected. See, for example, P.J. Scaer: 2008. Thus, the author retrieves and reaffirms tried and true atonement themes in Matthew. Not one of the problems put forward by S. Finlan gets addressed and resolved.

[27] Richard Rohr, O.F.M., “Learning From the Cross” URL=<http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/EDC/ag0301.asp> For more details on Duns Scotus, see URL=<http://www.franciscans.org.uk/2001jan-mulholland.html>

[28] See, for example, Rita Nakashima Borck, “And a Little Child Will Lead Us: Christology and Child Abuse,” in Christianity, Patriarchy, and Abuse: A Feminist Critique, ed. Joanne Carlson Brown and Carol R. Bohn (New York: Pilgrim, 1989) 42-61.

[29] Edward Schillebeeckx, Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord (New York: Seabury, 1980) 729.

[30] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus‑-God and Man (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) 43.

[31] Among the metaphors used by Paul to account for the saving activity of Jesus are the following: (a) “justification” as understood with a court of law, (b) “redemption” as a commercial transaction, (c) “reconciliation” between individuals and groups, (d) “sacrifice” in the context of ancient worship, and (e) “triumph over evil” as a battleground image. None of these metaphors taken individually or collectively adds up to Anselm’s theory of substitutionary atonement. Only when substitutionary atonement is read back into all the metaphors of Paul does everything appear to come together into a unified theory. Yet, when one examines the particulars, problems persist. An example: Why does Paul say, “Jesus . . . was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25) or “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Cor 15:17)? Substitutionary atonement theories do not know how to give due importance to the resurrection of Jesus. Another example: Paul sometimes presents Jesus’ death as a sacrifice, but he also urges believers “to present your bodies as a living sacrifice,” and he refers to his own preaching the gospel as his “priestly [i.e., sacrificial] service” (Rom 15:16). Atonement theories do not know how to give due importance to these other “sacrifices.” For details, see Robert J. Daly, The Origin of the Christian Doctrine of Sacrifice (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) and notes 24 and 25 above..

[32] John T. Carroll and Joel B. Green, eds., The Death of Jesus in Early Christianity (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993) 263.

[33] Joel B. Green & Mark D. Baker, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000) 220. For a clear and insightful examination of the “saving death” interpreted within its cultural context, see Stephen J. Patterson, Beyond the Passion: Rethinking the Death and Life of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004).

[34] URL=<www.outreachjudaism.org/jesusdeath.html>

[35] After the destruction of the temple, the rabbis designed substitutes for temple sacrifices. The descendants of Eli, accordingly, could find no atonement by sacrifice and meat-offering, but they might receive pardon through the occupation with the study of the Torah and acts of loving-kindness (b. Rosh Hashanah 18a). According to another tradition, the Holy One, blessed be he, foresaw that the Holy Temple would be destroyed and promised Israel that the words of the Torah, which is likened unto sacrifices, will, after the destruction of the Temple, be accepted as a substitute for sacrifices (Tanchuma ahri 10; Midrash Tanchuma 3.85a).

[36] When it comes to interpreting Jesus’ death, the authentic Pauline epistles must be understood as severely handicapped in contrast with the Gospels. Paul acknowledged that he was the last to be called as an “apostle” and that he never had the advantage of day-in and day-out contact with Jesus while he was training his disciples in Galilee. Paul, on the other hand, had the advantage of being trained “at the feet of Gamilel” (Acts 22:3) and, being fluent in Hebrew and Greek, he was intimately familiar with the Hellenized beliefs and practices of the Jews of Asia Minor. Nonetheless, Paul reminds the Corinthians that the focal point of his teaching, preaching, and ministry among them was simply “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor 2:1-2). But what Paul brings to the Corinthians is not the narrative of how and when Jesus came to be crucified (as illustrated by the Gospels). Rather, Paul reduces his interest in Jesus solely to the blessings his followers receive because of his death and resurrection. And he frames this within the horizon of understanding he received from Gamilel along with his own excellent intuitions of what would attract the attention of Jews in Asia Minor. Thus, Paul wanted to do theology for which he was gifted and to totally leave aside narrating Gospel stories.

[37] The prophets speak for the Lord designating that he is not pleased with temple sacrifices; rather, he wishes a heartfelt obedience. Ps 40:6-8 LXX more closely approximates the words in Heb. See also Ps 39:7-9, 51:16-17 and 1 Sam 15:22. The Letter to the Hebrews makes the point that Jesus as a priest according to the order of Melchizadek will enter the superior sanctuary, namely, the heavenly sanctuary where God dwells permanently. There are no animals there. Hence Jesus begins a new order of “sacrifice” as the eternal highpriest who delights in doing the will of his Father. Needless to say, Hebrews has many diverse interpretations. There is not the time or space here to adjudicate even a fraction of them.

[38] Gerald Sigal, “Jews for Judaism: Reference Section,” #081, URL=<http://jewsforjudaism.org/j4j-2000/html/reflib/tri081.html>

[39] Catholic and Protestant churches have exaggerated the universal significance of Jesus’ death by imagining that no sin, whether original or actual, could ever be forgiven and atoned for without appeal, in faith, to the infinite merits of Jesus. This is the heresy that emerged as Christianity broke free of the guidance and wisdom of Jesus and of the holy rabbis of Israel as well. Christians have to join with Edward Schillebeeckx, O.P., and to study the character of suffering in both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures by allowing that, “First of all, we must say that we are not redeemed thanks to the death of Jesus but despite it” (1980, 729).

[40] When Christians misrepresent the death of Jesus, they often do so because they have “powerful religious feelings of gratitude for Jesus” who willingly took up his cross in order to gain forgiveness for their sins. These powerful religious feelings blind them to the fact that the good name of Jesus is being purchased at the cost of seriously undermining the good name of his Father? Moreover, substitutionary atonement theories blind us to the fact that Jesus understood himself as a prophet and that Jesus warned his disciples that they must anticipate being abused and hated because being a prophet was always regarded as a hasardous occupation.

[41] The theology of substitutionary atonement is based upon two dubious notions: (a) that God the Father was unable and unwilling to forgive sins from the time of Adam to the death of Jesus and (b) that, once Jesus died, God transfers the merits gained by him to everyone who calls upon his name, as the apostle Paul tells us:

If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (Rom 10:9).

Thankfully, we have Jesus to correct those Christians who come down hard on Rom 10:9. When Jesus tells us about the final judgment, when the elect are placed on the right, does he tell them, “Blessed are you because you confessed with your mouth that ‘Jesus is Lord’? Of course not. According to Jesus, therefore, those who are placed on the right are not there because of their profession of faith in Jesus. Nor do they get chosen because they believe in the resurrection. Jesus even goes so far as to say, “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Matt 7:21). So, when Paul is being twisted out of shape, Rabbi Jesus comes to the rescue and corrects him.

Meanwhile, Bishop N.T. Wright, an international Pauline specialist, harmonizes Paul and Jesus by saying:

There was no clash [in Paul’s theology] between present justification by faith and future judgment by works [Rom 14:9-10 and 2 Cor 5:10]. The two actually need, and depend upon, one another (140).

[42] Extensive Jewish responses to the insensitive words of Archbishop O’Connor can be found in Jacobs (1993) 52-55.

[43] It is shocking that John Paul II who was surrounded by well-informed and trusted advisors would not have been cautioned against repeating the crude remarks he made to the Jews in Warsaw a year earlier. Sad to say, however, even a champion of honest and open exchanges with Jews could retain the idea that Jews suffering in the concentration camps somehow contributed to the spiritual redemption of the world. In my extensive contact with Jews, I have heard the pain and the anger that the families of Jewish survivors felt in the face of the pious nonsense that Christians promoted by way of identifying the “hidden benefits” of the Shoah. For more examples and for theological reflection on “The Limits of Forgiveness” in the presence of the scent of burning children in the camps, see Milavec (20003a) 882-901. Jewish survivors of the camps were brutally direct when it came time to challenge rabbis who wanted to persuade them that the horrors of the Shoah were due to the failure of most European Jews to maintain the kosher food laws. It is no mystery to me that over 90% of the Jews in the present-day State of Israel no longer believe in the God of their ancestors due to such misdirected support of the Nazi death camps.

[44] Even the Scriptures never make such exaggerated claims.  The Jesus was sinless is one thing; that Jesus is the sole human who is sinless is quite another.