So much of what the christian religion is about is distilled down to the last few days of Jesus life...and some how out of the end of it, one is " saved." I hate to say it, but, for years I just believed without question. It was like I just had to believe in the answer, that was what faith was kind of all about.
But things just didn't make sense. I tried to ignore it, suppressing like they were bad thoughts. But like playing Whac-o-mole, the thoughts wouldn't go away...they just kept popping up. I mean the implications of a violent parent and the necessity of innocent suffering, torture and death are profoundly troubling.
So a couple of weeks ago I was in conversation with a biblical scholar Daniel P Bailey whose specialty is " Atonement " on Scot McKnights blog. I know there were four theories on atonement...Christus Victor, Penal Substitution, Healing View, and Kaleidoscope. I asked him in the context of progressive christian theology if there is any new thinking out there. He recommended...
Christian A. Eberhart, The Sacrifice of Jesus: Understanding Atonement Biblically. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011.
Eberhart looks into the OT background to the NT images of Jesus as a sacrifice. He argues that OT sacrifice was not, contrary to common evangelical opinion, about death (the animal being punished instead of the human offering the sacrifice) and that NT images of Jesus as a sacrifice are also not about penal substitution. In fact, he argues, they are not even focused on Jesus' death.
Here are a few thoughts about OT sacrifice (according to Eberhart):
Sacrifice in the OT is about humans approaching a holy God in homage.
Not all sacrifices involve killing (the cereal offering)
Not all killing of animals was sacrifice (e.g., killing the passover lamb [NOTE: passover was not a sacrifice])
The killing of the animals was not the heart of sacrifice (the ritual element of slaughtering the animal was not central; rather, it was a necessary event to enable to sacrifice to happen).
The idea that the animal was killed instead of the person offering it is not found in the OT sacrificial cult. (The ritual act of the offerer leaning the hand upon the animals head is unlikely to indicate a transfer of sin from the offerer to the animal—a sin-infused animal would not be able to be offered to God).
The blood represented the life of the animal (Lev 17:11) and the application of the blood effected purification. This rite was important but not central to sacrifice per se (only one type of sacrifice employed this rite). Also the bood was not sprinkled on the offerer of the sacrifice.
The central act present in all kinds of sacrifice (Lev 1–7) is the burning ritual in which the offering is transformed so it they can "ascend" to God.
Offering sacrifice is like preparing a meal to be offered to (and in some sacrifices, shared with) God. Some with God and priest; some the God, priest and offerer and some with God, priest, offerer and relatives. This is a means of honoring God and being in relationships with him.
Sacrifice is atoning—the blood can purify/cleanse (cultic objects) and thus expiate sin and the burning is a "pleasing odor" that can propitiate God.
It's interesting trying understand the cultic sacrifice that was going on the the Israelite/Judaic community, and in surrounding cultures. But, then also trying understand the early christians trying
reading Jesus death into cultic sacrifice. It is here we find profound diffences, and incompatibilities...but, possibilities to read differently that don't diminish its story or truth.
In the NT Jesus is spoken of metaphorically in sacrificial terms but we miss much if we limit such references to his death. The idea of Jesus dying instead of us is indeed present in the NT but not in sacrificial images. (Eberhart points out that the NT does speak of Jesus' death in terms of Isaiah 53 and in terms of the passover lamb but that neither of these are about sacrifice so they fall outside of the discussion.)
Eph 5:1–2, which speaks of how Jesus "gave himself for us as an offering and sacrifice for God as a pleasing odor" is unlikely (for various reasons) to refer simply to Jesus' death. "It rather conveys that his entire mission and life were of a special quality and, as a genuine expression of worship, accepted by God" (p. 106).
The many NT refs to the "blood of Jesus" are sacrificial images and derive from the blood application rites (which are not identified with the act of slaughter itself but follow on from it). The point is the way in which Jesus is able to purify his people. The images points to the way in which Jesus can effect consecration (e.g., Exod 29; Lev 8) and the removal of guilt. But while some NT images speak of Christ's death as vicarious that idea is not at the heart of these specific metaphors.
The event in which believers are put in contact with the cleansing blood of Jesus is the Eucharist in which they drink the "blood of the covenant"—ingesting the life of Christ and being consecrated and forgiven (cf. Exod 24). Re-reading this Exodus passage, and in light of the last supper...it ignites the redemptive imagination to wonder if this shouldn't have been the focal point of atonement.
After reading Christian A. Eberhart's book it does question our atonement theories which is a good thing. Another good thing is, he does not undermine the importance of the cross. But he does ask us to be careful about simply assuming that the cultic sacrificial metaphors in the NT are focused primarily on Jesus death. It may well be that their focus is far wider...encompassing Jesus life and mission...and his death not being solely about sacrifice.
Anyway, if you've wondered about atonement, sacrifice, redemption, forgiveness, I recommend this book. It is extremely grounded. It will challenge you to rethink penal substitution, a violent and wrath-filled God...but not only that, but what sacrifice was all about. And the deal...$ 1.95 on amazon.ca.
