The Atonement, Part 5
January 28th, 2008 by JohnO
Unfortunately, as I now realize, I should have started with this post. However, I was not prepared enough to do it. Now we get to examine not an abstract theology of atonement - but rather look at the history. In a way, this is sidestepping the more traditional methods of grasping the atonement. Yet it proves, at least to me, to be fundamental for understanding anything about the atonement. And it answers the perpetual question that every Christian and historian must account for: why did Jesus die?
We understand that when Jesus makes a Messiah claim, a claim to be King of the Jews, Jesus is claiming authority over Israel and the temple. Moreover his actions in the temple before Passover are signaling judgment that is to come down on the temple and Israel. Jesus’ message is “repent or be judged”. Of course the ruling class in Jerusalem is offended that Jesus would claim to be a legitimate representative of God or Israel. He didn’t study under a rabbi, he isn’t affiliated with an existing social-religious group (Pharisees, Saducees, or Essenes). He was a lowly carpenter from the backwaters of Galilee. Jesus’ method, his modus operandi, is entirely different than everyone else’s and that strongly indicates the manner in which Jesus disagrees with the powers in Jerusalem. One of the biggest is power which I want to post about next - but I have to stay on track here.
We all know that Jesus has a huge emphasis on restoring people. He does it through healing, and he does it through exorcism. He does it through declaring people forgiven, and he does it in the cross. The question we all want to know is how does that work on the cross? I believe the basic idea is what we see in Zacchaeus:
When they saw it, they all {began} to grumble, saying, “He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.”
…
And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
Luke 19.7,9-10
Jesus comes to a sinner, and the sinner comes out restored on the other side. This is substitution that is clearly set forth in Isaiah:
Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being {fell} upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.
Is 53.4-6
Let me make myself clear that this is not penal substitution. Penal implies a legal situation, a situation of definition. Jesus here makes no claim of that at all - rather he makes a far bigger claim. That Zacchaeus is actually restored to the people of God, the people of Abraham. That those who are sick are actually healed. Because Jesus takes the infirmity on himself, the sin on himself. And instead gives back salvation. Salvation not in any ethereal sense, but a rock hard realistic sense. You’ll notice that Jesus describes his actions as seeking the lost, and that is exactly what Isaiah is talking about, gone astray.
When we look at Pilate offering Jesus to go free what do we see? We see Barabas going free. This is a man guilty of sedition being set free. Where a man innocent of sedition will die for that charge. Substitution again. Jesus dies to set Barabas free. While at the same time, Jesus is making an indictment of the method that the Jewish people are using to achieve their nationalist hopes. Jesus is telling them that their militant zealous plan to be rid of Rome will not work - watch them kill me under that very same guise. Jesus, representing Israel, shows them their future judgment at the hands of Rome. They would experience that judgment only forty years later in the destruction of the temple. Which Jesus already demonstrated for them. Jesus’ warnings of judgment towards Israel and the temple specifically seem to focus on a national sin which entirely distracts from their ability to be the light to the world they are supposed to be. Jesus died for Israel, hoping that they too would be set saved, if they would only repent. Saved not only as individuals, but as a nation too. This is one strong reason that we find Paul not coming to a Church replaces Israel theology, but a Church is the people of God, as Israel is the people of God (inasmuch as they’ve repented, for not all Israel is Israel).
This is why Paul can intimately say that Jesus died for his sins. This is what Jesus’ ministry did as a whole - this isn’t a secret doctrine. Jesus went in and erased sin where repentance was found. Morever, this is no longer strictly limited to Israel. Not a conclusion of Pentecost, but a natural outworking of Jesus is that the world is involved:
The theological interpretation is to be found within the historical events: it is because he died, quite literally, the death of rebellious Israel that his death could be seen as representative for the whole world. Underneath this sequence of thought, of course, we have to supply the characteristic Jewish presupposition that Israel is somehow paradigmatic or representative of the whole world: Jesus, as Israel’s representative, does for Israel and the world what Israel was called to do but could not do. - NT Wright
Israel, as Isaiah tells us, is supposed to be the light to the world. Not a separatist, holiness, institution - but a holy institution involved in the world. As Matt has coined “a holiness of offense, not of defense”. Since Jesus dies for the rebellious sinful Israel, he allows them the opportunity to repent, be forgiven, and rise to the occasion. Only a remnant is left as Paul tells us.
This explains every aspect of the cross. Why Rome put him down - fear of another insurrectionist, even though he wasn’t one. Why the leaders of Israel put him down - Jesus stood as a claimant to Messiah/Kingshp critiquing their methods of power. Why Jesus went to die - to redeem the sins of Israel, indeed each individual and the world, and to serve as a sign to Israel to repent from their chosen zealotry. It also keeps tightly knit Jesus’ ministry to his death - they serve the same purpose of atoning redemption.
Hi John O.,
you wrote above
I would say this is an incorrect statement … and it is incorrect in so far as you make incorrect logical connections. The situation before Pilate with Barabbas and Jesus had nothing whatever to do with atonement …
It seems to me that in various threads of this blog “youthful enthusiasm” and “being easily persuaded by things that sound good” are getting the better end of you (and some others as well) … and - unfortunately - I am thus far usually the “old uncle from Germany” who opposes and calls for a less enthusiastic, more objective and “cool headed” approach in examining what people write and preach in light of what Scripture actually says …
You know … I was once also rather “youthful enthusiastic” …. and it wasn’t all bad either, but it sure was the cause for going down wrong theological paths …. ;.)
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
“The situation before Pilate with Barabbas and Jesus had nothing whatever to do with atonement”
So, Jesus’ passion week and trial have nothing to do with his death on a cross? They are just the incidentals along the way? It would help if you stated a case instead of just asserting that people are wrong.
Hi John O.,
hmn … what shall I say now? your comment shows the need for encouragement to be more careful in reading, to observe context, etc … rather than missing the points that are made …
As for Jesus and Barabbas … did you notice your statement to which I was referring and which I even quoted? How was Barabbas “set free” in light of the context of “atonement” ?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
John,
I’m not sure I even quite get what you are saying. I like the approach–the historical perspective–but there seems to be many details all swirling around in my head. There is no question in my mind that we need a better more integrative understanding of the kingdom and the cross. We should not think of these two ingredients to the gospel message as disjointed, though that has been the case. So to that end, I have a strong desire to sort this stuff out.
okay…the historian’s question is “why did Jesus die?” But the historian’s answer is because he ticked off the temple authorities due to his prophetic demonstration of driving out the animals from the temple. This to me is not exhilarating. However, there are two more things to probe and this is where it gets really interesting. #1 what exactly was in Jesus’ mind when he was “cleansing” the temple? #2 why did Jesus think he needed to die?
You have answered both of these questions but I just need more convincing.
So his demonstration was prophetic in that it signaled the coming judgment. (Is this eschatological judgment?) This seems to make sense to me. I certainly don’t think he was cleansing the temple in order to make the temple clean. He could not have stopped all of the trade going on in a temple of that size anyhow, and if he did, they would just come back the next day. No, his actions were prophetic, on the order of Jeremiah and Ezekiel’s object lessons. Where, though, do we find support for this in the Gospels?
This is good too. Jesus sees himself as the representative of the people. This is the classic suffering servant of Isaiah approach to atonement. This makes sense in light of Jesus’ vocation–of being Israel’s Messiah. The Jewish king would go to battle with the people, or as they put it when they were looking for the first king, “he will fight our battles for us” etc. Or to quote Matisyahu, “the king was the people.” Clearly representation goes along with any davidic king, how much more with the one great, davidic king–the Messiah. Ok. I like where this is going. BUT, where is the Gospel data? Just one verse in Mark? or do we have more?
The middle part of your post was fantastic. I love the restoration language. It is the best way to make sense of the kingdom message and the healings/excorcisms of Jesus. This restoration idea, is probably the connecting tissue between the kingdom and the cross. Yet, we should not just revert to abstract theological inferences. We have called ourselves to a higher approach than mere speculation. We have chosen to come at the question from a historical approach.
Enter Barrabas. Ok, so if Barabbas is restored to the people while Jesus is on trial for the crime of Barabbas that may indicate the restorative angle we seek. BUT the decision to set Barabbas free came not from Jesus in some sort of voluntary fashion, rather, it was between Pilate and the rabble as to whom would be released. So how does this incident tell us anything about Jesus’ self-understanding?
I think I just talked myself in a circle. Any ideas?
Sean,
You ask:
“Is this eschatological judgment?” - I don’t know. I don’t have an answer. We seem to be somewhat content with an understanding that the 70AD destruction of the temple was judgment upon Israel. Surely that is what God did in the past. He protected Jerusalem and the temple from the Assyrians. But he gave up the city and temple to the Babylonians as judgment. Again he protected Jerusalem for a time in Roman hands, but ultimately gave it over for judgment again. And we connect this judgment with Jesus’ words to a certain extant (how far, I don’t know) to the Olivet discourse.
In response to the historians general answer to the first question: many don’t think this is good enough. Clearly the gospel witnesses testify that it was Jesus’ own self-understanding that he must die. Even Schweitzer agrees with that, but takes his own odd journey. That is the question that most historians will not touch. How did Jesus understand his own death. And I think that is where the restoration comes in.
I don’t think the Barabbas is a stretch because of the charges laid against both him and Jesus. They are both charged of insurrection, insurgency against Rome. I don’t think Pilate arbitrarily chose the first criminal he saw. In an ironic way, he gave the people a choice of which savior they want - which method they want to be saved by. A cloak-and-daggar Barabbas, or a prophetic-repentant Jesus. This is a way for Pilate to judge Jesus, since Pilate neither knows nor cares very much about the fate of a single insurrectionist Jew. Therefore it is not necessarily the individual Barabbas that Jesus atones for - it could have been any insurrectionist criminal that day - but it was the preferred Jewish method for restoration and return from exile. That violent method was just embodied in Barabbas that day.