When we read the Scriptures, we may have to make a variety of assumptions. Do we read the text literally or metaphorically, is it historical or a description of what the people at the time thought was appropriate? Importantly for us, what prior assumptions cloud our own perspective of Scriptures?
So, asked whether Jesus died on the Cross for our sins, this response questions what we believe and why.
Is the Bible inerrant?
Some might believe that the Bible is infallible and inerrant. Those of the late 19th C and early 20th C who pushed such a belief were later known as the fundamentalists; however, the roots of such a perspective might well be found in the Protestant Reformation in the 16th C with Calvin and Luther. It could be deemed to be ‘God’s Truth’.
It wasn’t until the 15th C that the printing press transformed the readership of the Bible, taking the words away from the Latin scholars and offering it available to anyone who could read. That in itself was a dilemma at such a time. Nevertheless, it also allowed a variety of opinions to be expressed – hence denominations – which could be quite individualistic. The printing press enabled the ‘Scriptures’ to be bound into one volume. This, now a single tome, may well have reinforced the idea that ‘God’ was the author.
Like any good opticians found on the High Street, people would now have a variety of ways through which they could view these Scriptures. The King James Version of the Bible was specifically written with an inerrant bias, as it was commissioned and overseen by King James in response to the Puritans in Scotland who used the Geneva translation. Many translations today struggle with removing of any latent bias in the words they use to convey the message written 2 millennia ago. What version we currently use might also be a considered a benefit, or an unseen hinderance to our understanding.
Context
It is a word used a lot when discussing Biblical passages. Taking the Latin prefix of con- as with-, context means with the text, relating to that text. So when we reflect upon a passage from a particular Biblical book, we may well need to consider the context it was written.
- Who wrote this? : Just because it has the name of someone as its author, we should be aware that in the 1st C it was quite common to write in someone else’s name. We – possibly actually scholars – may notice certain ways that the person wrote which might suggest that this isn’t them etc.
- There was some analysis I conducted back in 2018 which looked at the words used in the each of the books of the NT, to see if we might discern whether they were written by the same author. The results are here. It does show that some books of the NT, perceived to have been written by the same author, show some dissimilarities in terms of the words used.
- When was it written? : for knowing the date we might well see how other letters/gospels might blend together as well as geopolitical changes which could transform the context for the readers.
- Who was it written to? : when we write a letter, it is, I would presume, written to a particular person or group pf people. This may well affect what you include and possibly what you omit (because they already know that). Paul may never have imagined that his letters would be read by those in Galashiels, Gateshead or Gretna, for example. We might have this with Paul’s letters to the Corinthians when a prior letter from Paul to Chloe is mentioned – so why do we say it is First Corinthians?
- Why was it written? : as this might tell us what prompted the author, or authors, or even the scribe who scratched out the letters from the speaker, or even the person who so wanted to express the opinion of another and write using their name. We need to know the context, or at least be aware of the pitfalls if we don’t reflect on this issue.
Our own lens
When the reader opens the pages and reads the words of that text, the circumstances we exist within affect our own discerning of the passage. How can we feel about: the Israelites as they escaped Egypt; how Mary and Martha felt when their brother died – and then was raised again; the disciples must have felt after the crucifixion; and how Mary felt when she saw Jesus in the garden? If we are in a plague of misinformation currently, we must be assured that we are reading the passage using the mindset of the author(s) and understanding the community to which the letter etc has been written.
We may well feel persecuted in today’s world; however, that might be taking the word persecution as relevant to us, but not in an identical way to the first Christians suffering from the Roman Empire’s ways of dealing with perceived rabble rousers. In the last 200-300 years, society has been transformed as we progressed through the Enlightenment, when with Methodism adding Experience to the tried and trusty triad of Scripture, Reason and Tradition. [Albeit that wasn’t Wesley who coined the Quadrilateral, it was Albert Outler] Hence, we have our own lens of being centred within our own culturally conditioned, recently constructed historical experience, aka our own echo chamber. We can believe what we want to believe if that makes us feel good. Take politics…;-)
The Gospels
Given the above, but not knowing your own particular lens, let’s trace our way towards the Gospels.
Obviously Matthew’s Gospel is first, then Mark, Luke, and trailing in last is John. The first three Gospels are known as the Synoptic Gospels. That’s the Latin again, syn- and -optic : with in company with, and seen; so, seen together. We are informed that any one of these gospels should be read with one eye on the other two gospels. That’s good advice, as there are many scholars who would bet their last <choose your local currency> that Mark’s Gospel was the first to be written, followed by Matthew, closely followed by Luke, and, yes you’ve guessed it, John at the back.
However, Matthew and Luke seem to have, dare I say it, copied a lot from Mark’s Gospel but added in a significant smattering from a lost Gospel, known as Q – no relation to James Bond. Furthermore, the authorship of each Gospel was only stated as ‘according to’. We are not sure at all of who wrote the Gospels, or even if it was a shared affair. The previous statistical analysis seems to confirm the linkage between Matthew and Luke’s Gospels. There is thought that Mark was transcribing what Peter said had happened, and John’ Gospel is a group-authored set of notes, set many years after the event. In fact, Mark’s Gospel was probably written down in the early 70 CE. This is problematical, as the Romans had just ransacked the Temple in Jerusalem, and there was a divergence in allegiances between the newly formed ‘Christians’ and the original Jewish groups. That’s their lens at the time. It’s not exactly the same ‘lens’ as around 30-33 CE. They have moved on, the ‘church’ has moved on – and any eye witnesses are far and few between by now.
To add to the mix, there are possibly at least another 9 Gospels out there, written by Thomas and Peter etc. Do we just dismiss them?
History
Following the crucifixion, resurrection and the exponential growth of the faith in that first C, much happened – especially in terms of politics. The Romans wavered from absolutely hating the Christians to mildly accepting them, and after 312 CE, absolutely loving them. So much so, that their leaders were allowed to wear toga’s – check out the current priestly garb – and they had the use of huge buildings, known as basilica’s, rather than people’s houses. At subsequent pan-European meetings – of folk the Roman Emperor thought were sufficiently cool enough to attend – they ratified some belief structures. We now have some doctrine being cemented into place. They also agreed the contents of the Bible by the end of the 4th C – that said, the Protestant, Catholic and Jewish communities still have a different selections of books in their version of the sacred text.
By the end of the first millennia after Christ, there was a chap called Anselm. Now we are in the Middle Ages, where the land was separated out by ownership to the big Lords, and the rest of us were very much on the poverty track of life. We could redeem ourselves, if we could pay our debts. Anselm came up with this theory that we owed so much to God because of our sins, that we were unable to pay God back. So, Anselm, continues, Jesus’ death on the Cross was a sacrifice for all of humanity’s sins, and we were now cleared of all prior wrong doing. Cue celebrations. The people of the day, not being able to read in sufficient numbers, were informed of this and could easily relate to being unable to pay back to their own particular Lord of the Manor, but could be released of such a financial burden. Can you see a particular lens here? It was later developed into what’s known as the Penal Substitution Atonement Theory. So, why is this the favoured theory even today?
This is just one of the many Atonement Theories which abound within theology. Note that key word – theory. There is Christus Victor, including the derivative narrative Christus Victor, the Moral Influence, and many more. Christus Victor speaks of God handing over Jesus to Satan to be killed, and for this, the souls of humanity will be saved. Ah! but Jesus was merely bait, it was all deception, and God’s light chases Satan away. One by Parker and Brown, speaks of the sheer horror of God permitting ‘divine child abuse’ by allowing Jesus to be sacrificed willingly. They have a lens from women who have been conditioned to accept abuse, of being second best to men. Others, from Latin America may well have a very different perspective of God and the crucifixion than, say, those from a very comfortable upbringing in Northern Europe – even seeing Jesus in a very different light (above).
A summary of the seven theories (not limited to seven) can be found here.
There is even one blog about the relationship between Atonement Theory and Harry Potter!
What do you believe?
Our belief structure may well be defined by our early childhood, whether that be family or Sunday School; who we engaged with during our informative years (15-85+?); and what happened to us throughout life. This gives us our perspective, our lens.
When we read the Bible, it is a collection of texts which speak of understanding God by the people then, in their circumstances : and we are hoping to relate to those words. When people say “This is the Word of God” – we may well like to rephrase that as the New Zealand Anglican Book of Common Prayer suggests,
“Hear what the Spirit of God is saying to the church“.
It may be good that the preacher, or whoever, sets out for us what to believe, like a commodity on sale at the local shop; but it may well be a better idea if we were to really consider for ourselves what exactly do we believe. It doesn’t make us a better or worse believer by adopting this strategy. It allows us to own our own faith in God – which is kind of crucial, don’t you agree?
Books?
Some books which might help are as follows:
Reading the Bible – Again – for the First Time by Marcus Borg.
The Nonviolent Atonement by J. Denny Weaver.
Short Stories by Jesus by Amy-Jill Levine
The Lost Gospel of Q by Burton Mack
The dialogue was excellent
God is able to foresee – as we see today, that nothing has changed since Jesus’ crucifixion, and we are still sinners, perhaps even more. If Christ has taken all our sins on himself, then we should go back to the Garden of Eden. God forgives us our sins when we sincerely repent and ask him for his forgiveness, and does not need Christ to be crucified. Perhaps Christ came into this world to teach us how to love through his life.
However, the predictions about his crucifixion in the Bible make it look as though it was pre-planned with a purpose, although Jesus never said he had to go through all this to take away our sins. Did he?
Luke 2:35 New International Version (NIV)
So that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.
Luke 22:42 New International Version (NIV)
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”
Jesus spoke openly about what would happen to him: crucifixion and then resurrection from the dead. “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31; see also Matthew 17:22; Luke 9:22)
Did the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus lead to Christianity ? In order for Jesus to show us how to love, did he have to go through the Crucifixion?
You are quoting from the Gospels written 30-50 years *after* the Resurrection. The words ‘spoken’ by Jesus were not immediately taken down verbatim – they are attributed to Jesus. Each Gospel author is writing their account to their readers, relating to their circumstances, using their lens.
In other NT books words are attributed to others but, from analysis of their grammar etc, they are not consistent with the intended authors language.
Additionally, given our presumption of the Crucifixion for our sins – note the lens there – we can read back into the words within the Bible.
Many attributed OT prophesies can also be linked similarly. In Statistics there’s a saying : correlation does not imply causality. It could also apply here.
You mentioned the Gospels were written 30–50 years *after* the Resurrection. Is 50 years that long? I was thinking – that could be the same generation that witnessed the Resurrection. But as I said, in the Bible, nowhere does Jesus say that he has to go through the Crucifixion and Resurrection in order to take away our sins. Does he? Strangely, no one asked him the reason. It seems to me, just as you said, the cause perhaps was decided later on.
What do you think about Jesus’ last supper – the holy communion that is accepted by every Christian – Catholics, Protestants and all the denominations? Holy Communion is one of those things that links everyone together as Christians.
The Purpose: Jesus’ teachings, his crucifixion and resurrection have caused Christianity to spread across the world with a lot of intensity, although there is still sin in this world. As we know, during Jesus’ time, crucifixion was a common punishment for criminals and hence it was known beforehand that if anyone claimed to be the “Son of God” and performed miracles, taught people God’s ways, the importance of worldly leaders would go down. The then leaders thought their position would be risky, as people would listen to Jesus more than these worldly leaders. Thus, it was known beforehand that Christ would go through all this if he wanted to teach us how to love through his life.
I think, even life expectancies back then – albeit I have no statistical figures as yet to back this up – were much shorter than they are now. [This was taken from Wiki today : Most Greeks and Romans died young. About half of all children died before adolescence. Those who survived to the age of 30 had a reasonable chance of reaching 50 or 60. The truly elderly, however, were rare. Because so many died in childhood, life expectancy at birth was probably between 20 and 30 years.] Therefore, 50 years was quite a long period for many folk, especially those in rural settings, and with the civil unrest in that time with the Roman occupation. Data storage wasn’t a hot topic also, so how do you keep those quotes somewhere safe. Would only the rich have the means for scribes to write down those comments in journals? That’s another lens we might have to consider.
I am trying to gather some evidence to consider whether the art work for the first 500 years or so after Jesus prominently featured the Cross. The issue is that painting in the first few centuries may not have lasted that well. If the painting, post 11thC and Anselm, shows that the Cross has a renewed emphasis, might this not suggest that Anselm’s theory had caught hold?
Many scholars have tried to write why did Jesus did. There isn’t an emphatic answer unless we want to stand behind doctrine and dogma. If we ourselves in our own personal belief wish to reconcile our faith with Jesus, then we might need to struggle with this as well.
I am soon to write more about Holy Communion or Eucharist or the Last Supper, as it, again, is not as clear as the ‘church’ might wish it to be. Hope that’s ok
There are ordinary people who chose to take extreme steps when they believed totally in what they stood for. One such example that is popular in the world I know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagat_Singh.
I think Jesus totally believed in God and stood by the messages he gave to the people. And, therefore, he did what he did. As a result, many who did not believe him previously have now believed him.
The question is whether Jesus was a moral example or more? More to the point is whether we *need* the reason for his death and returning to life, or that what he taught is what we need to understand and be.
Some thoughts:
When we focus on Jesus’ teachings, his teaching also includes Jesus’ revealing of himself as Christ, about God and the Holy Spirit, besides forgiveness, loving others and the Kingdom of God.
Jesus never announced to the entire world his teachings or his being the Son of God while he was alive, but to only a section of the people. Hence, there were only a handful of people who really heard and thought about him. Even his disciples did not fully understand him then. And probably because of this, it was easier for some people to crucify him without having to deal with protests or outbreaks – although not sure if that was even possible then. Crucifixions were common in those days, and hence people may not have thought about preserving data related to Jesus’ crucifixion.
Besides, after the resurrection, there was persecution of Christians for a very long time – maybe until 500 AD, and hence no paintings or any cross symbol were possible. The first appearances of the ichthys (fish symbol – used because of fear of persecution) in Christian art and literature date to the 2nd century. The symbol’s use among Christians had become popular by the late 2nd century, and its use spread widely in the 3rd and 4th centuries.
It must have been a very big effort from the apostles and other missionaries risking their lives, managing to get his teachings slowly across the world (only possible after they themselves were fully convinced). Apostle Thomas came to India (Kerala https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Kerala – my parents’ hometown) and they seem to have concrete evidence of that in India (heard from my mom) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle Hence there are a great number of St. Thomas churches in Kerala. https://youtu.be/NplBnC97Tmo
I see this pattern : God does not reveal himself to everyone, which is similar to God not healing someone in the presence of many people.
Yes, the Ichthys symbol, purportedly used as a means of code, is something that emphasises the importance of Jesus but not in part of the crucifixion and resurrection. The art work, as you are eluding to, does not immediately in the years that followed, point towards the crucifixion as critical. What amazes me is the exponential interest in the movement – trying to avoid the word church here – after Jesus. We have the followers in Antioch, still in their houses; then again we have the Corinthians, again in houses, those in Ephesus – all seeking to follow in the ways of Jesus. “The Way’ being the name of these new followers. Yes, the message would get to Rome, well a small part of Rome, and find favour there as well, but the underlying message of hope went out on trade routes, and of course included India.
The Church, an organisation of mostly men, was then set up and post 323 AD, mirrored the Roman system of leadership. Some might suggest that is when it started to go awry. Perhaps the meeting in houses was a key part in the movement: of caring, supporting and meeting the local needs. And it took until the 12th C before we get an atonement theory which releases the perceived burden from humans of all that they believe is wrong. What lens were they looking through?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_in_the_arts#
The earliest crucifixion in an illuminated manuscript, from the Syriac Rabbula Gospels, 586 CE
so why if the followers didn’t focus upon the Crucifixion for 6 C do we? Was it that art wasn’t a communication medium then? Given prehistoric at found in caves, I think we can discount that.
I thought Ichthys symbol was meant as a sign to say to the like-minded that they believe in Christ. Unlike the cross, the fish symbol attracted little suspicion, making it a perfect secret symbol for persecuted believers. https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/august/what-is-origin-of-christian-fish-symbol.html
We already discussed church versus groups praying (in houses) before. But yes, the Bible was also written by men.
You mentioned – “the underlying message of hope went out on trade routes”
It seems, unlike the British and the Portuguese, some really came with intentions of spreading the Gospel at least in India but were unfortunately killed. Apostle Thomas was killed outside Kerala. Not sure if you have heard about Australian missionary Graham Staines, his wife and his two sons. Here is their story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IMdZyymkdI. It is tough even to imagine how it would have been for the Apostles and others after Jesus’ resurrection. It must have needed immense courage and abundance of faith.
Perhaps, the Atonement theories support the fact that Jesus was crucified to take away our sins. https://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/. Whenever the facts are passed from generation to generation, they are passed in a way that is favorable to men, but that does not change the main foundation of Christianity.
If crucifixion or resurrection was not important, then why would Christianity be important? As I said, all the apostles and Jesus’ followers contributed to the formation of Christianity after they underwent unimaginable struggles, and met their death more or less the same way as Jesus did. The crucifixion or resurrection is what makes Christians different from Jews, who still wait for Christ to come. Also, it makes Christians different from Muslims, who consider Jesus as one of the prophets.
The fact remains – God does not reveal himself to everyone, just as God does not heal someone in the presence of a multitude of people.
“Whenever the facts are passed from generation to generation, they are passed in a way that is favorable to men, but that does not change the main foundation of Christianity.” I agree but we should take this into account, critiquing what we read, rather than blindly accepting it – which, by discussing it, you are.
Would we have a faith in God and the life of Jesus without the Crucifixion and Resurrection? So the previous 3 years of ministry was nothing in comparison?
I would be cautious when we make an argument that Christianity is different to Judaism – Jesus was a Jew. The new followers were also Jews who believed in Jesus. Islam had a different interpretation than Christianity because it was revealed 600 years later, and in different circumstances. God is still real to all three perspectives.
To grapple with the Resurrection issue, not to merely accept what is provided, akin to a supermarket offer, enables a stronger faith to be developed – one you accept as your own.