Overheard on the Far Side of the Sea of Tiberius

“After bidding them farewell, He left for the mountain to pray.”

Part of an ancient biography, aka Mark 6:46

Son: Hey, Dad, how’re you doing?

Father: Same as all eternity.

Son: Sorry.  Stupid question.  You get living among humans enough, you pick up their idiotic habits.

Father: Idiotic?

Son: Sorry again.  You’re right.  The habits aren’t idiotic at all.  Like asking the question, “How are you?”  It is just a way to show that you are interested in the other person, that you care, that you love.  Of course, every habit of love becomes just a rote symbol, without any kind of love whatsoever, but the idea of it is nice.

Father: So you are appreciating the humans more?

Son: Sometimes.  (He smiles.)  Did you just see the apostles, there?  Five thousand people and I told them to feed them and they just stared at me as if I was full of shit but they didn’t want to say anything because I am the “Rabbi”.¹⁷  That was so funny!  It was all I could do not to laugh out loud at them! 

Father: I could see the humor in the situation…

Son: (Laughing) It was hilarious!  Andrew trying to suck up to me by giving me this kid with some bread and fish, but all the time he’s thinking, “Like that’ll do any good!”  It’s a blast, really. 

Father: So you are enjoying your work?

Son: I love it!  It is the best, demonstrating your power to every person I meet.  I look at those folks who are sure that they are rejected by You because of their sin, because of their sickness, because of their handicap.  I have never seen a people more dejected, more spiritually oppressed.  And with a simple word, I can give them forgiveness, assurance, hope.  They know, really know, that You’ve forgiven them.  They are ready to be a part of your love again.  It’s wonderful, really.¹⁸

Father: Is it always that wonderful?

Son: Well, it’s hard work. I’m tired a lot.  I wish I had more time with You.  And, of course, there are those who reject the forgiveness I offer… ¹⁹

Father: I know it was hard for you in Nazareth.²⁰

Son: (Suddenly enraged) Those people knew me for thirty years!  I fixed their homes and their carts, played with their children, read the Scriptures to them.  And when I give them a hint—simply a hint—of who I really am, they reject me!  They despise me!

Father: Of course, they’re just “stupid humans.”

Son: They are my family!  We cared for each other, watched out for each other…. I don’t expect you to understand.  It’s a human thing, family.

Father: Really, Son—I do understand.  I really do.  Family is not just something I created, it’s something I experience.  Have you been human so long you don’t remember what it was like before?

Son: (Thinks for a moment.) When you’re human, thirty years is… like eternity.  Eternity in a microscopic organism.  And to have them say spew such hatred at me—it is a rejection of that eternity.  Of all who I am, as a human.

Father: And more.

Son: They never really understood me.

Father: Humans never really understand each other—and you are the most different of all humans. 

Son: I suppose.  But it still hurts.

Father: I know.

Son: But how could you know?  I’ve never felt anything like this.  Every emotion is so damn overwhelming!  Every slight—I can’t stop thinking about it! 

Father: And yet you still think of the humans as idiotic?

Son: I suppose they aren’t stupid—they just have so much to focus on.  How do they get anything done?

Father: They get them done because they are overwhelmed by emotion.  They are driven.

Son: And you made them like this?  How different are they than animals, being led by instinct?

Father: Oh, very different.  They can make choices like the gods.  They can create like the gods.

Son: But every choice is so difficult…

Father: And in that way, they are greater than the gods.  The powers easily make choices and they are easy to fulfill.  Every human is they story of a struggle.  A struggle to survive, to be made known, to assist others…

Son: So few assist others…

Father: How many mothers die for their children?

Son: Of course, they only want children to assist themselves…

Father: Is that really true?  Is that why they want children?

Son: To carry on their name, to be their replacement, to assist them when they are old…

Father: When it is so often that the mother dies in childbirth?  Every child she carries is a potential death sentence.  Every mother knows this.  Knows that this child may be their last.  Yet they are willing to sacrifice themselves for even a potential child.

Son: Don’t some animals do this as well?

Father: Certainly.  But how many gods would surrender their eternity for the sake of others?  How many gods would give up all they have for the sake of others receiving an eternity?

Son: That’s a point.

Father: Do you see why I gave humans the rulership over creation?  Only humans, being animal but also god-like, can understand the necessity of self-sacrifice.  Only they can appreciate the fourth law of justice.

Son: Humph.  Couldn’t tell by how they appreciate my teaching.

Father: What do you mean?

Son: I’ve taught the fourth law of justice in many ways and forms.  But they still don’t get it.  No one is willing to give up of themselves now in order to obtain more from you in the long run.

Father: What about your disciples?  They have surrendered their jobs, their families, their possessions….

Son: True.  But they only have done this because they think that their salvation—the kingdom—is right around the corner.  If they weren’t led by the misguided opinion that all of their sacrifice is in the past, then they might turn around right now. 

Father: I think you expect too much of them…

Son: And why shouldn’t I?  They have seen your power, haven’t they?  They know what you are capable of—right now, anytime!  They are offered freedom, and instead they hold onto their old assumptions, their old limitations.

Father: You know what I’ve told you.  It isn’t enough for them to hear a teaching.  They need a story.

Son: Stories!  I’ve told them plenty of stories!  That just confuses them more!  This is why I’ve decided that stories are a judgment, not a blessing.  I tell them stories as a test of faith.  If they come back and ask me what it means, that is a true disciple.  If they make up their own meanings to my stories, then they must remain in their confusion and their distance from you.

Father: I have told you before.  It is not enough to tell a story.  You must live it.  They must see it, or they will never believe.

Son: So you want me to arrange a showing of the prodigal son?  Or the pearl of great price?  I suppose that could be done, but…²¹

Father: No.  I want you to live out the fourth law of justice. 

Son: Live it out?  I don’t understand…

Father: I want you to show them that the third and fourth laws really work.  And I’m not talking about the weak fourth law.  I mean the fourth law that includes death.  That it just some cockamamie idea of yours.  That it is practical. 

Son: (A little nervous) But I thought the sacrifice law was just a last resort, a last chance…

Father: That’s what most of the gods think.  A chance for an appeal.  And Satan believes that this law will never be utilized, because there has never been an innocent man.

Son: I thought you showed him differently in the Job case…²²

Father: No.  Because I wouldn’t let him kill Job, thus it was only the lesser fourth law that was proven. Again. Yes, he was humbled, but not completely sacrificed.  Besides, the story is old, and not really believed.  I need you to fulfill it. Fully.  To live it out.  To make believers of your people.

Son: But… how?  I mean, Satan isn’t going to kill me himself.  He knows better than that.  The Pharisees might try, but they don’t have the authority.  How can the fourth law be enacted?

Father: Jerusalem.²³

Son: Jerusalem?  But why would they come to Galilee to attack…

Father: You must go to them.  You must reveal yourself to them.

Son: Even so, why would they want to kill me?

Father: Simple.  First of all, strut into their city on a colt.²⁴

Son: (Stunned) That would be an open declaration of my rule over Jerusalem…

Father: Yep.

Son: That would stir them up alright. 

Father: And then, go to the temple and point out how the High Priest is mishandling the cult there.²⁵

Son: Is he?

Father: Of course he is.  Honestly, it’s completely corrupt.

Son: What should I do?

Father: Make it up as you go along, but make it dramatic.  Something that will get headlines.  That will declare that you’re taking over the organization of the temple.

Son: And that would be enough?

Father: Plenty.  You don’t know those people.  They are corrupt clingers of power.  I haven’t spoken to the high priest in a hundred years.  They are pleasers of Rome, not of me.  And the heart of their power is the cult.  If you threaten the temple, the priesthood, they will do it.  Threaten their power—they will kill you.

Son: And this is what you want?

Father: I want you to be the focus of the fourth law.  I want there to be no question as to your worthiness to rule the kingdom—to rule the earth.  The third and fourth laws will support you in your rule, and no one could gainsay my decision.

Son: But you want me to go through this?

Father: It is your choice.

Son: No, no, it’s not, really.  I am here to do your will.  You know that.  Do you want me to suffer at the hands of these evil men?

Father: Of course I don’t.  I understand what you will have to suffer.  You are giving up an eternity—a human eternity—for the sake of a god’s eternity. 

Son: I’ve already given up a god’s eternity for a human one.

Father: Yes, I know.  But will you do it again?   Give up your human eternity to obtain even greater benefits?  As ruler of the earth, you could establish all four laws as the rule of the earth, instead of just the first, as it stands now.  You can create true justice, and not the shambles of justice that exists now.  You will be able to create a humanity that is worthy of rule over creation.  But also, look at your people.  Those who follow you.  And all those who repented under John.  You are giving them a chance—a real chance—at a new life.  They screwed their lives up.  But you are giving them another chance, a real chance.  You aren’t doing it for yourself—there just isn’t enough benefit for yourself.  You are doing it for them.

Son: (Silent for a while) I see. Yeah… yeah, it’s worth it.  Well, all we can do is try, then.

Father: Trust me, it will work.

Son: I guess.

Father: I hate to cut our time short, but it looks like your people are afraid again.²⁶

Son: The sea?

Father: Yeah.  (Chuckles)  Thalasse²⁷ is really giving them a hard time.

Son: Irritating, is what it is.  Why don’t they just tell her to shut up?

Father:  Too freaked out, I guess.

Son: Well, I guess that’s it for my break. 

Father: Go get ‘em, kid.

Son:  I will.  Talk to you later.

Notes

17.          John 6:4-13

18.          Mark 2:1-12; Mark 6:34; Luke 13:10-16.

19.          Mark 1:33-37; Mark 4:38.

20.          Mark 6:1-6; Luke 4:16-30.

21.          The prodigal son is found in Luke 15:11-32; The pearl of great price is found in Matthew 13:45-46.

22.          Job 1-2.

23.          Mark 10:34-35; Luke 13:33-35.

24.          Matthew 21:1-11.

25.          Mark 11:11, 15-18.

26.          Mark 6:46-52; John 6:15-21.

27.          The Greek word for “sea”.  The sea is seen in the ancient world, not just as a body of water, but also as having a personality behind it, which is destructive to humanity.

Law #2-- The Repentant

Law of Justice #2:  All the repentant are forgiven before God.

If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him.

An ancient teaching of Yeshua, aka Luke 17:3-4

God is the most lenient of judges.  If he sees that someone is sincerely apologetic for their rebellion, then he will welcome them back to society.  To enter back into society is what the Bible calls “forgiveness”.¹⁵  Sin separates one from God’s people and forgiveness welcomes one back.

            However, most authorities do not act with God’s mercy.  They assume that there must be a certain kind of punishment or rehabilitation for one’s sins.  Thus, even after repentance the separation may continue.  Which gives the sinner no reason to repent or to change their actions.  They “do their time” and so have “paid their debt”, but if they are willing to pay the fee, then they may do the action again.

            God determines that any authority who refuses to forgive those whom He has forgiven has committed a sin against the Highest Authority.¹⁶  To continue to punish someone whom God has forgiven is to separate from one whom God has welcomed.  It is to cause a false schism in society to tear apart that which God determined must remain together. 

Notes

15.  Using the English word “forgiveness” is confusing in this context.  I wish there were another word I could use.  To “forgive” someone in English is to not have any “hard feelings” or to release bitterness against some wrong done against one.  But in ancient societies, “forgiveness” means much more.  It means that the exile is over, that the person is welcome back into full participation in the community.  Thus the typical “I forgive you but I don’t want to see you” can’t be used in this context.  It is also for this reason that repentance is a requirement for forgiveness.  If a person is not repentant of their oppressive, destructive acts against others, they cannot be allowed free reign in a society.  Thus are murderers put in prison—they are not forgiven, and they are not considered safe for society.

16.  The fullest example of this is in Matthew 18:25-33; but also see Matthew 6:12-15; Mark 11:25; Luke 11:4.

Rebellion

“Let not the rebellious exalt themselves.”

A line from an ancient lyric, aka Psalm 66:7

There exists a beautiful land, glorious and yet simple, where people live happily in their homes and raised their children in peace.  Once, years ago, there was a terrible dictator who forced people to pay high taxes and there was misery everywhere.  

But since that time the Kingdom of God came in, swept away the evil dictator, and since then there has been peace and harmony.  All people work together for a common purpose and they are all free from the evil of the past.  Every family has a strong leader and the children are raise in the ways of truth and justice.

            But there are still a few, occasionally, who oppose the ways of the Kingdom of God.  There are a few who feel, in their greed, that they do not have enough, so they steal from those who have more.  There is, once and again, those who hurt others in their anger.  There is, on occasion, those who are overwhelmed by lust and hate and rape their object of disdain.

            And once, just once, was a woman so that she would kidnap children, selling them to the Kingdom’s enemies.  She confessed to every one of her crimes, yet she remained unrepentant.  Here is the transcript of how justice was done:

Judge:  It is for the sake of your soul that we are concerned.  Please, repent and we will have leniency.

Johnson: I don’t deserve your leniency.

Judge: Then you admit your crimes?

Johnson: I admit that I kidnapped children.  And I would do so again. Happily.

Judge: Do you not realize that you are destroying our community?

Johnson: I do so gladly.

Judge: To take our children from us and hand them over to another nation is to undermine all we have worked for.

Johnson: Don’t I know it.

Judge: Please, all we want to know is where you have put these children.  We just want them restored to their parents.

Johnson: I will not let you know.

Judge: Think of the families you have torn apart!  If you could see the tears of the fathers!

Johnson: I would spit in their faces, if I ever met them or saw them on the street.

Judge: Why?  These men did not abuse the children…

Johnson: Ha!

Judge: Why do you doubt this?  We have their testimony, as well as the testimony of their brothers…

Johnson: Doubt it?  The children themselves told me of the abuse!  Did you ever take testimony of the wives?

Judge: Surely you would not completely trust the word of children?

Johnson: And why shouldn’t I?

Judge: From my twenty years of experience on the bench, I can tell you, children are not always clear about events in the past.  They misremember, they are easily swayed. 

Johnson: I can trust my own eyes when I see an eleven year old pregnant.

Judge: By her father?

Johnson: By her “husband”!

Judge: And what is wrong with that?

Johnson: Apart from the danger to herself because of the pregnancy?  The fact that The General married these children off to his soldiers and they raped little girls…

Judge: They were not raped

Johnson: Not according to your laws, no.  They were legally, forcibly, married to men three times their age and then taken into the bridal chamber and the men had their way with them.  No matter that the man already had two other wives.  No matter that the child has barely had her first period.

Judge: But they all have had their first period.

Johnson: And I’m sure that your male supervisors took great pleasure observing that.

Judge: Don’t be grotesque.

Johnson: You are the ones who are grotesque!  You have kidnapped small boys and girls...

Judge: We are not the kidnappers, you are.

Johnson: Where do these small children come from?  Just as many as die in battle or in childbirth you capture from villages you pass through!  The boys you convince to be mighty warriors for your Kingdom of God and the girls are married to the adult soldiers as prizes.  It is an affront to God!

Judge: You are an affront to God.  You are so self-righteous.  You are not humble before the authorities.

Johnson: I need not be humble before you, you hypocrite!  You support the rape of young girls by calling it “marriage,” and legalize the warping of innocent boys to be war machines by calling it “boot camp”.  You kill the righteous and make it all legal by declaring yourself a government.  You oppress the poor and blame them for your policies.  You bomb cities and declare them to be in rebellion.  The fact is—you are the rebel.  You are the ones who are opposed to God, not I.  Repent!

Judge: This trial is not about how our society is run, it is about your…

Johnson: Repent!

Judge: Ms. Johnson, I need to ask you to calm down…

Johnson: Repent of your sins before God!

Judge: Bailiffs please take her away.  Yes, go ahead and silence her.  Thank you.  Silence truly is golden… ha, ha.  Take her to the range and do what you must.   What is the next case?¹⁴

^Notes

^14.  This is based on true events happening in North Africa.  There is a group called God’s Army who kidnap children and train them to fight and the girls are given to soldiers to rape and to call their “wives”.  Some of these children escape and others are taken by brave saviors and brought into refugee camps.  In a corrupt society, that which is good is declared illegal and the good are killed for doing good. 

Law of Justice #1: All rebellion is punishable by separation.

The soul who sins will die. But if a man is righteous and practices justice and righteousness…he is righteous and will surely live.

An ancient aphorism, also known as Ezekiel 18:4-5, 9

For any society to run by justice, there must be agreed upon mores and laws, based upon what is good for society at large.  These laws are created and enforced by authorities.  Sin is a rejection of the law of the authorities by disobedience.  Rebellion is an all-out rejection of the authority of society by a blatant disregard for that authority to uphold the standards of society. Thus, for there to be justice in society, there must be acceptance of authority.  To reject authority is to reject what is good for society.

Those who reject society are those who are dangerous to justice.  The rebellious must then be separated from society.  This separation could be prison, it could be exile from the society or it could be death.  Separation is not rehabilitation, although it could be if done with gentleness, nor is it strictly punishment.  It is protecting society from those who would harm it.  The one who harms society cannot be a part of society.

            However, we all have more than one authority.  God is the ultimate authority, while governments are a lesser authority and a soldier or police officer a lesser one yet.  If a lesser authority commands the rebellion against the higher authority, then it is the lesser authority in rebellion.  To participate in the rebellion of a lesser authority is to rebel against the higher authority.¹³

^Notes

13. Some might feel uncomfortable with this description of the law, which is, fundamentally, “Do the crime, pay the time.”  It seems so… conservative Republican, so fundamentalist Christian.  So far from the message of Jesus.  What we need to remember is that this principle, also known as the principle of karma, is the foundation of all spirituality.  There is almost no spirituality that stays with this principle, which says that grace is simply unnecessary.  But it is the principle of government justice.  This is why spirituality is always popular, because this principle is how the world actually works.  Religion and spirituality is really the idea that the world can work in some other way than karma.                       Since I’ve got your attention here, I want to point out a social and ethical experiment that was made about this very subject.  It was done to indicate whether cheaters or the altruistic succeed in the long run.  It was a game that was developed in which some people would always cheat, some people would always be generous and some people would only do bad if bad was done to them, and some would do good if good was done to them.  It is that third group that had the most success in game.  It was concluded that, ethically, then that approach—the karmic approach—is the successful one for life.  

The Prisoner's Dilemma

The Story of Stories

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

A rather dense paragraph of an ancient theological treatise, also known as Romans 3:23-26

A long time ago in a land far, far away there was a story.  It was, so to speak, the greatest story ever told, and best of all, it was true.  It was politically and culturally subversive, and explained much of what was wrong with the world, and pointed toward a solution that could really work.  It was told in many ways and many languages and thousands of people believed in this story.  It was beautiful, and the reception of this subversive story by so many was marvelous.

            But there was a problem.  This story was translated into many languages, and crossed many cultures and so it wasn’t as clearly understood by later generations as it was the first.  The story was still openly received, and was clearly subversive, and it was still beautiful.  But there was some disagreement about the point of the story.  Some people thought it was judicial, some thought it was religious, and some thought it was ethical. That’s often the way of stories.  They get over-analyzed and the further from the original cultural context it gets, the harder it is to say what the story is really about.

It was as if the story of “Little Red Riding Hood” was told in the context of a culture in which red hoods was a clear symbol of radical communism.  The details of the story would still remain the same, but the point of the story could be radically different.   Suddenly, Red becomes a naïve socialist activist, the wolf is the capitalist system, the grandmother is the helpless proletariat and the hunter is the Revolution.  Or, if someone is a capitalist sympathizer, the whole story turns upside-down and the wolf is the victim and the hunter the evil Red Army.

This is what happened to the story of the cross.⁴

In different contexts the story of Jesus became a variety of things that wasn’t intended by the original storytellers.⁵  To be honest, the original point was SO subversive, SO radical that it couldn’t be understood at all by those not trained to look for it.  Thus, the greatest minds in each culture set about deciphering the meaning of the Code of the Cross.  And many of these meanings continue to have significance to today.

In the Ancient world, only a hundred years or so lived a Christian named Alexander.⁶  Alexander was a Gentile convert from paganism.  And frankly, he understood paganism pretty well.  Gods in the heavens controlled armies and major events on earth, creating chaos.   Gods need to be placated and appeased in order to reduce that chaos to a minimum.  However, many of these gods are capricious and just evil-minded, so pain, suffering, disease and death exist.  Alexander then heard the gospel and realized that all of these gods are actually under the control of this mojo-evil god named Satan.  And there is only one God in heaven, the Father, who has mercy on humanity, and who rules over Satan and all these evil gods.  Jesus died to save us from our sins, which we committed under the rule of these gods.  Alexander believed this wonderful story, and became a Christian—a completely subversive act in his day.

But he was still confused about one thing—how could Jesus dying actually save us from our sins?  Yes, Alexander believed it was true, but it was all a little confusing.  The sacrifices were used to placate these evil gods—what could Jesus’ sacrifice do to deliver us from sins?  Alexander read most of the New Testament, but he was still confused.  Then, in prayer one day, it was revealed to him what the story actually meant.

The real enemy of the story is Satan, the king of the gods, himself.  Although the devil appears in the gospels rarely, all the evil characters were ultimately representing him.  It is clear that all of these people, except Jesus himself, were enslaved to Satan— trapped, tortured and lied to.  How did they get trapped?  By their sin, of course!  People’s sin against God transferred the rule under which they live from God to Satan.  This is because Satan is the Father’s prosecuting attorney and executioner.  Since sin results in death, God has the responsibility to take all of sinful humanity—all of humanity, in fact—and give them over to Satan. 

But God was not content to leave humanity in this place, because he loved them so.  He wanted them to not be under Satan, but under His own rule, His kingdom.  But what could he do?  Satan had legal rule over humanity, due to their sin.  Ah, says God the Father, I know!  The only way to release the captive is to placate the evil god, to offer him a ransom for the captives.  What price would be equivalent for all humanity?  Why, the death of his son, of course.  And so God sent his son to die to pay the price to Satan to release humanity from captivity.  And since Satan actually arranged Jesus’ death, he was ultimately defeated as ruler of humanity.  Thus, through Jesus’ death, all of the pagan gods are defeated.  And because Jesus willingly died, he becomes the Lord of all heavens at the side of God the Father.⁷

This is a great interpretation, and very attractive to those who were released from pagan beliefs.  Alexander passed this understanding of Jesus’ death on.  It moved like wildfire among the second century churches.  Alexander never wrote this story down because the most effective means of communication in his day was not books, but oratory.  So the story was passed on word of mouth.  It wasn’t until Ignatius and Tertullian and others that this understanding was placed in a book.  And by then, it so represented the meaning of the “gospel” that it was never actually explained, just referred to.

Many, many years later it was felt that Alexander’s explanation was inadequate.  It was okay, in the eyes of many, but it had some holes in it.  Over the years the story was revised and changed and adjusted and tweaked in such minor ways, that no one really thought they were changing it at all.  Just making an adjustment.  Finally, a guy named Anselm realized that the explanation of Jesus sacrifice was really quite different from what the early Christian writers understood.   So he thought he would put it all down in one full story, along with all necessary explanations. 

The story Anselm told had quite a different beginning point from Alexander’s.  The significant figure that was harming humanity was not seen as Satan, as much as God the Father.  This is not because God the Father hated humanity, on the contrary, he had a real emotional attachment to humanity.  But, you see, God is a judge, and his hands are tied by the laws of the universe.  The law of the universe is that if anyone acts in rebellion against the judge—God himself—then they must die.  It is as simple as that.  It is an automatic judicial process.  God the Father would like to change the rules, but he can’t.  Death must be paid for sin.

However, God also knew that the law had a loophole.  You see, the way the law was worded—Death is the penalty for sin—doesn’t clearly say whose death was required.  Ah ha! says God.  This means that another can die for humanity.  But who would pay this ultimate price?  It must be someone innocent—someone who doesn’t have to pay for their own death.  And it must be someone powerful—powerful enough that the one death would be payment enough for all of humanity.  Who would do?  Well, actually, thinks God—it must be Me.  No one else can pay the price required.

 Of course, God the Father can’t die—he’s awful busy judging and sustaining the universe. So it conveniently works that God actually has three persons—the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  So the Father caused the Son to become a human and to die, so that all of humanity might be delivered from death, the penalty for their sin.⁹

This is a powerful story, and one that took the Christian world on fire—even as Alexander’s did—and endures as the most popular understanding of Jesus’ death to this very day.  This story became so significant culturally that it has been forgotten by the masses of believers in it that as an interpretation, it is not actually found in the New Testament. 

And the story has been deemed inadequate by many Christians over the years.¹⁰  They do not like the image of God as judge, enforcing the ultimate death and torture of every human being.  They do not like the fact that believing in Jesus’ death as the substitution for their penalty of sin doesn’t change people to be any better than before they believed in it.  In other words, it speaks of how the penalty for sin is set aside, but not sin itself.  So much of this story—as powerful as it is—seems so inadequate.

Abelard was a teacher and monk who didn’t live too many years apart from Anselm.  He had a pretty spicy personal life that was told all throughout the medieval world—he and his girl Heloise—a nun— really had the hots for each other and wanted to get married.  They chose to remain faithful to their vows of chastity, rather than break their covenant with God.  Heloise was never completely satisfied with this solution, but Abelard—so deeply involved in theological circles—became as content as a cow in a field of clover and a nice looking bull just across the way. 

Perhaps because he was trying so hard to forget Heloise, or perhaps his love for her colored all of his theology, Abelard took his frustrations out on Anselm’s understanding of Jesus’ death.  Every time he read it, it made him upset.  Where, Abelard complained, is the love?  Isn’t God love?  God is full of mercy and forgiveness and redemption—so why does Anselm’s story of atonement so lacking in love?  It is a story of judicial wisdom, perhaps, and of theological mysticism, but there is no passion, no emotion.  Also, Abelard says, everyone who believes in this story is grateful to such a God, but they remain in their sin.  They have received an unbelievable grace, but there is no requirement to do anything different, to act as God desires us to act.

And so, Abelard wrote in Latin to his other companions in theology, let us set aside the myth of God’s jurisprudence.  God’s desire is not so much that we have a penalty paid, but that we change behavior.  Jesus’ primary message is not “receive grace” but “repent”.  Jesus was sent, not as a scapegoat, a sacrifice for someone else’s sin—after all, sacrifices really did nothing in reality.  Rather, Jesus was sent as the ultimate example.  The ultimate example of love.  Jesus was willing to sacrifice himself to show humanity that we need to live for others, not for ourselves.  Jesus’ example is so extreme that anyone who desires to be like him even to the smallest degree would so love others that their lives would be changed.  Jesus’ example was so powerful, that many saints lived their lives according to his principles and they showed others how the Christian life should be lived.¹¹ Abelard was seen to be a heretic by many.¹² 

And the debate rages on, for centuries, for millennia, as to the real meaning of Jesus’ death.  One story gets passed for another which is revised for another.  But the truth is so hard to find.  Unless, of course, one looks at the gospels. 

The “gospel” is often understood to be whatever interpretation of Jesus’ death is accepted by those who speak of it.  Proof texts are pulled out, the more vague the better.  And, somehow, those who believe in that interpretation are considered to be “saved”.  Not, God forbid, if they just believe in Jesus himself, but in penile substitution, or Christus victor or ethical example atonement.  As if often the case, Jesus is often traded in for the latest fad “gospel” that is to preached, enforced and sold. 

The gospels are left behind.  The first, best communication of Jesus is not understood, and so deemed inadequate.  Few recommend the open reading of the gospels themselves without a guide to interpret it in accordance with the “right” interpretation.  Why is this?  Because the gospels do not clearly communicate any of these atonement theories that have been described above.  Satan, in the gospels, is a minor character, who seems to take even more of a back seat during the passion of Christ than even the small role he plays during Jesus’ ministry.  In the gospels, God is not represented as needing to punish, but as forgiving—and angry against some groups, but not humanity as a whole.  In the gospels, love is a central theme of ethics, but it is rarely mentioned in conjunction with Jesus’ death—and there is certainly something else going on besides a debate about ethics at the heart of Jesus’ death.  As it has often been stated, who would kill a guy who just said “wouldn’t it be nice if we loved each other more?” 

There has got to be something more.  Something we’ve been missing.  Something subversive—because Jesus was killed as a rebel.  Something radical—because Jesus had to die for it.  Something beautiful—because Jesus’ death was meant to deliver us.  And there is.  


Notes

4.            Well, actually, the story of Jesus never did become the story of the socialists. Depending on how you want to define "socialist", anyway.  Jesus’ story could never be the story of the radical communists without some serious rewrite because he willingly submitted to his enemies.  Marxism, Leninism, Maoism—they needed to promote the action of a violent, end-of-the-world-like revolution.  Thus, while quietly denying the passiveness of Jesus, there were some who would uphold the story of the Exodus, especially in Latin America.  Moses becomes the great leader and the violent themes become the revolution itself.  Thus was Liberation Theology born.

5.            Some would say that the New Testament clearly describes the purpose of Jesus’ death.  That may be true, but most theologians, when describing the theology of Jesus’ death, ends up describing in detail a certain word or two that isn’t understood well.  Or they focus on one word that has many meanings—whether in Greek or in English—and then demands that the word have one meaning.  It is problematic when theology sounds like a used car salesman, highlighting certain aspects so we don’t notice others.

6.            This isn’t his real name.  Frankly, we don’t know what his real name is, or if it was a single person.  However, we are going to use the name Alexander because it’s convenient for us.  Also, because we like the alliteration. Sorry.  I assume you’re reading this book because you like your theology covered with a good dollop of entertaining fiction.  That’s what I like, anyway.

7.            This interpretation of Jesus’ death is called the Christus Victor argument, and some form of it is usually understood to be the common interpretation of Jesus death from at least the time of the second century AD.  Passages that confirm this view are: Genesis 3; Colossians 2:13-15; I John 3:8; Ephesians 2:1-7; Matt 5:25-26; Matt 12:29; Hebrews 2:14.

8.            Anselm was a real person, in case you were wondering.  And he really wrote a book.  It’s called “Why Did God Become A Man” He wrote other books as well, but that’s the important one here.

9.            Verses for Anselm’s view: Anselm’s view is the most prevalent view among Protestants today, and the most heard in “gospel presentations”.   II Corinthians 5:21; Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; I John 2:2; 4:10.  Many use half of Paul’s letter to the Romans to support this view: a. God’s wrath is against the whole world—Gentiles and Jews—because of their sin (Romans 1-3); Through faith in Jesus’ death, God has established a means of salvation (Romans 4-5);  Because of faith in Jesus’ death, God has given everyone the ability to live rightly before God (Romans 6-8). 

10.          The largest theological difficulty with Anselm’s interpretation is the wrath of God that demands the destruction of every single individual without hope of God’s forgiveness without a sacrifice—it proposes an “Old Testament God” that the Hebrew Scriptures don’t propose.  Another difficulty is the acceptance of human sacrifice.  But biblically, the difficulty with the view is the assumptions that get put with certain words.  The term “for our sin” is assumed to mean “in place of us”, as if an exchange of punishments is assumed, when a more natural reading would be “because of our sin”.  Another problem is the Greek word ilastrarios which is commonly translated “propitiation”, which is usually understood as a sacrifice to appease a god’s wrath.  However, the word, in a general sense, means “the means to forgiveness” (see Louw and Nida, and the UBS lexicon).   Thus, the passages are seeing Jesus’ death, in a general sense, being the means of forgiveness, but they don’t explain how that is done.

11.          Some verses for Abelard’s view: John 15:13; Mark 8:34; Phil 2:3-11; I Peter 2:19-24.  One of the main difficulties with Abelard’s view is that he is saying that Jesus’ death teaches us how to love, while these verses all promote Jesus’ death as an example for sacrifice and humility.

12.          One of the main critiques of Abelard’s view is that it doesn’t really discuss past sin, or how Jesus obtains us freedom from that.  Abelard’s view seems most separated from a Scriptural discussion of the atonement, except that it does express a theme of imitation that is discussed in the New Testament.

The Realist

The difference between the world and the true believer in Jesus is sacrifice for others. 

The world has as their primary doctrine that they want it all, but it can’t hurt too badly.  Sure, they will send their sons off to war, and they will mortgage their house and rack up debt to go to school.  But all of this is on the blind hope that “it will all come out okay in the end.”  They will eventually pay off the mortgage.  They will get a great job to pay off school debts.  They will see their sons return from war.  It will all be okay.

            The Christian, frankly, is the greater realist.  Sons die in war.  School debts aren’t always repaid.  Houses are taken away.  Suffering is simply a part of this world, and if this world is all that there is, then there ain’t no justice.  The innocent really do spend their lives in prison.  Civilians really are the tragic victims of war.  The wealthy really do get more than they deserve.  Children really are the number one target of death.  That’s reality.

            The world can’t handle that, so they have to dress it up, make the facts more palatable.  Existentialism is finding the meaning of life in a life that is pointless, for no particular reason than that the other options aren’t acceptable.  The evening news tells us the hard facts—but not the hard facts that are really painful.  They tell us how many Americans died in Iraq today, but not how many Iraqis.  Not how many children died of AIDS today.  They celebrate the ball going down in Times Square, not grieving over the mass murder of drunken driving that same night.  Humans are a cowardly lot.

            But Jesus doesn’t endure cowardice.  He tells it like it is, and insists that we see reality as it is.  He tells us, “If you want to follow me, count the cost—and you will find that it is more than you want to pay.”  Sacrifice, he insists, is the only true way to gain the ultimate joy.  Cold hard facts.  The follower of Jesus is persecuted.  They lose their housing. They take up poverty. They are hated by many.  They get rejected by those whom they love. They get tortured, raped and killed.  This isn’t just some masochistic wishful thinking.  It’s reality.  And it’s ugly.

            Of course, the Christian repeats the mantra of “it will all come out okay in the end” as well.  But they don’t see “the end” as being in this life, this age of Orwellian self-deception, CEOs, push-button warfare, economic selfishness, celebrity rulers, blind nationalism, half-hearted bureaucratic welfare and immoral religionists.  The “all right” cannot be found in the midst of such a world system.  Rather “the end” is a matter of God’s making, God’s creation, after all this is over.

            And the only way to achieve this end is sacrifice.  Sacrifice of this world, this life, this false American hope.  Sacrifice of all our parents lived to give us.  Sacrifice of all the martial martyrs died to offer us.  To obtain God’s end, we must be anawim—rejects, outcasts, poverty-stricken fanatics.  We must be like Abraham.  We must be like Jesus.  Only then will we be able to walk in God’s presence and call it “home.” 

            The message of the whole Bible is that to receive God’s salvation, one must be anawim:

           

To obtain God’s security, one must be vulnerable.

            To obtain God’s wealth, one must be poor.

            To obtain God’s comfort, one must be suffering.

            To obtain God’s fellowship, one must be lonely.

            To obtain God’s utopia, one must first live in hell.

            

And for those of us who live pretty well, this means we have to give up an awful lot.  God’s eternal life means recognizing our good life and getting rid of it.

            To sacrifice, one might be called irresponsible and insane, like Abraham was.  To sacrifice, one might have to give up all that is good to accept all that is awful and shameful as the Son did when he became human.  To sacrifice, one might be accepting a life of what is unacceptable to those around us.  But it is all for that which is greater than we can now touch or see.  We will obtain the greater by surrendering the lesser.

How does one do this?  There are many ways, depending on who one rubs shoulders with, the lifestyle one lives.

 
One could be like Francis who would refuse to keep anything for himself, if it was lacked by any needy person he met.  Thus, he was given a coat, and he would pass it on to the first coatless person he met.
 
We could be like Philemon, who opened his house to whatever people in the church needed a place to live.
 
We could be like Dorothy Day, who wrote for the sake of the needy, published for only a penny and opened homes for the poor to live in until they got on their feet.
 

We could be like Jean Vanier , who created communities in which the developmentally disabled would choose to live with “abled” people who choose to live with them.  Or we could be like – who, as a famous spiritual author, chose to live in such a community.
 
We could be like Peter Waldo, who heard and obeyed Jesus’ clear statement to “sell your possessions and give to the poor” although his wealth was great, and then trained the poor to preach Jesus’ word, in opposition to the sermons of the wealthy pastors.
 
We could be like the hundreds of workers for Mennonite Central Committee, who gave up their professions to use their skills for the poor around the world at a minimal income.
 
We could be Shane Claiborne and his community who chose to live amongst the poor in Philadelphia, so the plight of the poor could be their plight.
 

We could live in community with the poor, like Viv Gregg or the many workers through InnerChange.
 
We could be like James and learn how to transform our church to be a place which is open to the vulnerability of the needy, giving honor to them above the honor we give to the wealthy, granting work and a fair wage to those who need it most.
 

We could be like Anawim Christian Community and create a space for the needy to worship and live and create their own solutions.
 
We could be like Blanchet Farms and create communities for the needy to work for themselves.

The possibilities are endless.