| ||
I want to take up a question I asked earlier: “Is the cross a condemnation of human violence, an act of divine violence, or both (or neither)?” For starters, let me postulate that God hates sin. I’ll define sin as a breakdown of humans’ ability to love and relate to God and one another; alienation (to be mended later by reconciliation) is a good word for it. This alienation defies God’s purpose for creation, with the result that God (often violently) punishes whoever is responsible. He may avenge sin in this way because it is in nature to do so, or he may do so out of an insistence that humanity know how much he hates sin. The flood suggests the former, the cross the latter. Genesis 1–7 begins with God’s intimacy with creation and shows how humanity breaks and increasingly defies that intimacy. I believe the flood is a key to the story of Scripture, because it shows God’s response to sin: God ultimately removes it or punishes it, whatever the cost. It is difficult to over-emphasize the importance of the flood (whether one thinks it literally happened or is a myth intended to make a theological point), in that God was willing to destroy almost all of creation, out of both wrath and a loving desire to make creation good again. God starts again with Noah, who does love God and his family, but of course he and his descendants fall again into sin and alienation. These early stories describing the pervasive sin both before and after the flood suggest a key point about humans: while the occasional individual (like Enoch or Noah) whole-heartedly seeks a realtionship with God on his/her own, humanity on the whole will inevitably descend into sin and alienation from God if left to ourselves. So God makes it easier for humans by setting certain terms to define the relationship. He begins with Abraham and eventually establishes the covenant with Israel, in an effort to win back their love and to use them to win back the love of the world. But, of course, the people break this relationship early and often and continue to fall into sin. God responds to their sin, as he did during the flood, by destroying Israel’s world, via the exile, to make the nation good again. In the incarnation, God conclusively defies divine/human alienation; though already present with Israel in many ways over the centuries, God now becomes a human to achieve the full intimacy of relationship. The cross, I’m convinced, is beyond human comprehension. Scripture describes Christ’s work in various ways, many of them centering on animal sacrifice, and yet we never quite understand why sacrifice (animal or divine) should mend the broken relationship between us and God. I suspect that animal sacrifice was intended to demonstrate the weight of our iniquity, but of course it could not really settle the matter conclusively. Here I would suggest that the crucifixion must be understood in light of the flood. I shouldn’t over-press the point, since the NT itself doesn’t draw this connection, but I do think it can help us make sense of divine violence in general and the cross in particular. Both the watery destruction of the entire world and the death of the incarnate God underline the weight of sin in God’s eyes, but in powerfully different ways. In Genesis, God executes his wrath upon humanity and creation; in the crucifixion, God takes it upon himself. In one sense, this means that Christ suffers the punishment we deserve, but in another sense it is a proclamation to us that God will not allow human weakness to prevent relationship between God and his creation. God was unwilling to leave sin ultimately unpunished, lest we think it unimportant. The cross, then, is not a condemnation of human violence, but a condemnation of human sin. If divine violence was inevitable, God chose the most gracious act of violence possible, in that God in the flesh was the willing victim. The hope, it seems, was that all people in the world would look at the cross and recognize both (1) that we are sinners who need to repent and (2) that God loves us passionately and will forgive our sin so that we can be reconciled to the creator who loves us. The beauty of the cross is this: only the crucifixion has proclaimed to humanity both the boundlessness of God’s love and the full weight of our sin without destroying us to teach us the lesson. |
June 19th, 2006 at 9:28 am
I recently read that book called: “Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Divine”, by Yale’s Prof. Bloom, which claim that Yahweh and Jesus were too different to be related, although he’s mainly speaking from a literary point of view and is not a believer.
I have followed your superb case regarding the divine violence along the weeks. I find your conclusions (if they are) more than convincing. It makes perfect sense, and although you do not try to merge different biblical “theologies”, you showed me all the doors that go from one room to another to another. I can now see why the furious destroyer God of the OT is the same as the loving NT God who sent his only begotten son to save the world.
I have now made your blog one of my favorites. You manage to speak to my critical mind, eager to find the truth about God and the Scriptures, and at the same time you inspire me and edify my faith. Please keep on writing this blog!
Peace
June 19th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Samuel-
Thanks for saying so. I’ll do my best.
June 20th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Scoots said:
He may avenge sin in this way because it is in nature to do so, or he may do so out of an insistence that humanity know how much he hates sin.
I think you’ll have to go with the latter, because as you said earlier, a predisposition to killing doesn’t make it right.
But the latter is kind of ridiculous, too … seems like God could get a megaphone or something, or distribute some beatings, instead of reaching out and killing people. I don’t see how anything could alienate people from God more than God up and killing them.
I suspect that animal sacrifice was intended to demonstrate the weight of our iniquity
We’re not first-century Jews, and I don’t think the animal sacrifice metaphor communicates with us on any level. It’s a metaphor we have absolutely no background for, and so it’s not true for us in any way. We should stop trying to mash it into our theology.
In Genesis, God executes his wrath upon humanity and creation; in the crucifixion, God takes it upon himself.
How would one support the claim that Christ’s death is somehow the outcome of God’s wrath? God didn’t kill Jesus, people did. And it doesn’t help to claim that God killed Jesus by *allowing* people to kill Jesus, because then we have to make God directly culpable for everything God allows. (Torture, genocide, starvation, etc.)
I can see how one might claim that Jesus’ death is the result of people’s sin, but my head spins at the claim that it somehow appeased God’s wrath to have sinful people kill God’s son.
It’s fine to say, “the crucifixion is a mystery” but it’s not fair to then turn around and say, “and it supports my view of divine violence”.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:02 am
It’s fine to say, “the crucifixion is a mystery” but it’s not fair to then turn around and say, “and it supports my view of divine violence”.
My point is more to show a consistency in Scripture than to justify what Scripture says God did. The NT has tons of references to the cross as something God wanted/caused to happen; and, obviously, the cross was a violent event.
If you want to say that the cross couldn’t have been something God did, I suppose that’s fine, but it’s hard to imagine what you’d consider viable from NT theology once you’ve made that move.
So if you say, “Well, God didn’t have to use violence,” I’m not sure I can disprove you there. My claim is simply that if he did use violence, it wasn’t necessarily inconsistent with his character as seen elsewhere.
I also suspect that, if Jesus hadn’t told us to love our enemies, we would have no notion that someone who did something wicked would deserve anything apart from violent retribution. (Although perhaps folks who have studied other religions a bit more than I have could prove me wrong here.)
Now, it is of course possible that we are simply projecting our ideas of vengeance on God, and I assume that’s what many people would claim. However, it also is possible that justice in the form of violent punishment is a part of the fabric of reality, but that God has asked Christians to renounce the right to carrying out such justice so that he can do it himself.
I’m not saying I particularly like the idea that God insists on violent retribution for wickedness. I just believe that he does, and that it’s compatible with his revelation in Christ.
Matt asked about a definition of violence before; maybe we should try to figure out a definition of justice. A couple of questions:
(1) If we could determine that God is just, to what extent would that satisfy our demands for his “morality”? Or to put it another way, is it ok for might to make right if the mighty one consistently sets things truly right?
(2) Could there be a good God who didn’t pursue/create justice?
(3) Can justice ever be brought about by violence? Is it only the degree of violence God may have used that is offensive to people, or the fact that he used any violence at all?
Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume this is in a situation where people have free will to a large extent, which means you can’t just say God should have puppeted people into acting justly.
Let’s see where these lead us.
June 21st, 2006 at 11:44 am
Scott,
I found your blog off of a guy from ACU who posted on Larry James’ site and linked to your blog. I’m currently at BU, but did a masters in history at BC. Been in Boston for awhile now. Anyhow, visit my blog and drop me a line if you’re interested in meeting up when you arrive at BC.
Chad Smith
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:53 am
Matthew wrote: “We’re not first-century Jews, and I don’t think the animal sacrifice metaphor communicates with us on any level”.
It’s true, yet the crucifixion happened in that context of animal sacrifice that could wash their sins away, and we can but try to relate to it somehow.
I’ve been reading Leviticus and Numbers lately, so the effusion of blood kinda, yes, just kinda, speaks to me.
Maybe we’re forcing the Jewish canon to agree with Christianity, but I guess that’s what makes us Christians.
June 26th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Samuel said…
Maybe we’re forcing the Jewish canon to agree with Christianity, but I guess that’s what makes us Christians.
Hunh. I was thinking that we’re Christians because we try to follow Christ. =)
December 28th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Scoots,
You said, “The beauty of the cross is this: only the crucifixion has proclaimed to humanity both the boundlessness of God’s love and the full weight of our sin without destroying us to teach us the lesson.”
Well said and well done.
However, I do not believe that God meant only to teach us a lesson (and I’m not saying that you are saying this either). But, because of the sacrifice of Christ at the cross, we who truly believe are made righteous by His blood. This is a very important point. Christ didn’t merely die a martyr’s death to teach us a lesson. Christ died an atoning death to justify and sanctify us.
Of course, God’s violence against sinners is always just. And God did not abandon justice when He displayed His mercy to us at the cross. Rather, He justified those who believe.
Those who would charge God with wrongdoing, injustice, and/or sin are playing with fire. They ought to remember a few things:
God is God, and they are not.
God is holy, and they are sinful.
God is just, and apart from Christ, they are unjust.
When God kills people, He is simply giving people what they deserve. They shouldn’t have sinned, and they did.
Thank God for the cross.