Was Jesus subversive? Considering the 'other' reason Jesus died on the cross There is an aspect to Jesus’ death that has been overlooked, or silenced even, because of the traditional emphasis on atonement. We focus on the sacrificial aspect of the cross: God sent Jesus to die for us so we can be forgiven.  But in recent years the word subversive emerges in the discussion in theological literature about Jesus’ ministry. Questions abound:• Why was Jesus executed as a criminal?Still, in most of our congregations the hymns we sing, the prayers we pray and the sermons we hear during Lent and into Holy Week lift up the death of Jesus as something he didn’t deserve. He was innocent of all charges brought against him. He died so we might be saved. He paid the ransom. God was pleased with Jesus’ sacrifice. “Worthy is Christ, the lamb who was slain, whose blood set us free to be people of God,” we sing in our Evangelical Lutheran Worship communion liturgy. Certainly some Bible verses do speak about the death of Jesus as payment for sin, as ransom, as atonement. But there also is strong evidence in the Gospels that Jesus died because of what he said and did as a “subversive” Jewish teacher who was a danger to the status quo. Religious leaders wanted him silenced because of the threat he posed to the established order. He had caused people to question some of their traditions and laws, and he showed that some things were more important than rules. These authorities didn’t want to jeopardize their precarious standing with the Roman authorities. So they turned Jesus over to Pilate. Early in Jesus’ ministry, as recorded in Mark, he questioned some laws regarding Sabbath observance. By his actions, he violated them. He didn’t hesitate to heal the man with a withered hand. His disciples also broke the law by plucking grain. Jesus was accused of blasphemy because of his teaching about forgiveness. And the Pharisees conspired to destroy him (Mark 3:6). From the beginning of his ministry right up to the last week of his life, Jesus said and did things that brought conflict, leading to his death. His cleansing of the temple took place just days before his crucifixion. It has important implications for why he was considered subversive. Jesus wasn’t just criticizing the commercial use of the temple courtyard space but also confronting the domination system that violated God’s intention for his people. The temple had become a cover for greed and exploitation. Jesus well knew the important role the temple played in the life of the Jewish community, yet he deliberately violated this sacred space to expose corruption in religion. That was subversion, to some. And he had to be stopped. With the ELCA’s renewed emphasis on Bible study through the Book of Faith initiative, it’s helpful to read the Gospels with a fresh perspective. • What do the authors of the first four books of the New Testament, the Gospel writers, tell us about the reasons Jesus was put to death?We can’t avoid reading that Jesus was considered a threat to society by those who felt responsible to maintain peace and security. Or that he died because of what he said and did. It’s clear, too, that he knew the possible consequences of his action. Full meaning of the cross These biblical insights don’t take away from the sacrificial aspect of Jesus’ death or diminish the love that led him to the cross. But they do encourage us to be more aware of the full meaning of the cross, as a present reality as well as an event in Jesus’ life. When Jesus told his disciples to take up the cross and follow him, he was reminding us all that there will be times when our witness and actions will meet resistance from those in power. Yes, the cross can cause us to “... tremble, tremble, tremble.” The Jesus movement was, and is, countercultural. The proclamation of the gospel includes a declaration of God’s justice: God’s action to bring about an alternative to violence, greed, hunger and domination. We preach grace—but not only grace. Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann writes: “A rereading of the gospel of grace and a reconsideration of the Enlightenment ideology will lead to a stunning and compelling fresh awareness: Our most serious relationships, including our relationship to the God of the gospel, are, at the same time, profoundly unconditional and massively conditional” (The Covenanted Self, Fortress Press, 1999). Brueggemann goes on to suggest that it becomes a problem when we add the word “alone” to Paul’s emphasis on grace. Could it be that our fixation on “grace alone” has left us deaf to God’s call to “do justice, and to love kindness and to walk humbly with our God” (Micah 6:8)? When Jesus did exactly this, he was considered a subversive. Opposing the Roman Empire The sacrament of communion is centered on the cross and the presence of Jesus for us. Jesus’ sacrifice is a strong element in our liturgy. Would we be as eager to gather at the table if we understood the full reason for Jesus’ death? Is not the bread and wine also a reminder that Jesus died because he laid his life on the line by opposing the Roman Empire? When we hear the words “do this for the remembrance of me,” what are we invited to remember? God’s forgiveness, yes. But are we not also to remember that Jesus was considered subversive? And to realize that eating the bread and drinking the wine makes us part of his resistance movement? When I was young, I was taught that God loves me and that Jesus died for me. I was reminded to be thankful that God sent Jesus to die for my sins. I accepted Jesus as my savior. I’m grateful for my early training. But something was missing: I don’t remember being taught that the cross is also about confrontation and consequences. Many Lenten hymns still move me. This season I will once again sing, with gusto, “Lift high the cross, the love of Christ proclaim” (ELW, 660). When I wear a cross around my neck, I don’t do so because I think of it as “beautiful,” nor do I slip it in the front pocket of my shirt because it’s too heavy. Crosses from the countries I’ve visited hang on my office wall. The cross is central to my faith. But I am concerned for our church and for our witness to the world if the cross only stands for Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins. As I read the Scriptures, I’m reminded that Jesus died because he was considered a threat to a society that neglected the poor and worshiped the sword. Sometimes I even wish Jesus hadn’t asked me to take up my cross. |
thumb.jpg)
| James - 2/22/2008 |
George Johnson's essay - "Was Jesus subversive?" answers the question many of us in the church are afraid to ask, namely, what does "Jesus paid for our sins," mean? This question was first put to me 35 years ago when I was teaching Sunday School to a group of 7th graders. I had to say I had no idea. The logical answer is that we worshipped some kind of monster who would have his child suffer a terrible death in order to be satisfied. I knew that a young inquiring mind would want to know why we worship such a fiend and I had no answer to that question. It's high time that the church reject this "Blood Theory" of the atonement and preach and teach the "Christus Victor" theory which pastor Johnson outlined. |
| Susan - 2/25/2008 |
| I am amazed to find such misinformation in The Lutheran and wonder just what purpose this provocative piece serves. So now "Grace alone" Martin Luthers foundation is no longer enough? And Jesus died opposing the Roman Empire? Not according to my Bible which tells of the confrontations he had with the Pharisees and scribes and other Jewish leaders.. It was the Jewish "court" who arrested him in the garden and tried him. They decided he should die - Pilate washed his hands of it and found no fault in him. According to Rev Johnson he laid his life on the line opposing the Roman Empire. Is the Bible being re-written.? Or just twisted to fit this warped theology. Yes, the cross is apparently still a stumbling block to many. This is the Jesus who said "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God those which are Gods". Yes he shook up society - the religious Jewish society of his time. This is not to justify antisemitism it is a simple reading of the Gospels. I just don't see any value in the authors provocation - especially as there is no support in scripture for it. Too bad Brueggeman thought Luther wrong to add "alone" to grace. I for one will hold to my Lutheran faith in Gods grace as the foundation of my life, and continue to "do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with my God" in GrATITUDE for that grace. |
| James - 2/26/2008 |
| Susan Do you believe that the God of "your" bible would require a sacrifice? And does this God demand that his son be killed for us? If your answer is yes to either question, why would you worship such a monster. Athiesism is an act of pur religion when faced with such a "God". God loves you - you are saved by His grace alone. Human beings killed jesus - not God. You missed the point of Pastor Johnson's essay. God lived among us to show us how to live non-violently and even though we killed Jesus, God loves us in spite of ourselves. |
| Susan - 2/26/2008 |
| James, Jesus himself said "this is my body given for you, this is my blood shed for you". that's enough for me. Who am I to question the wisdom of God's plan for his son? In the "wisdom" of your world, it makes no sense - but Jesus being human and God's son meant he faced the same evils and pains we do. He didn't just "live among us" he became us, fully human, yet fully devine. If not the cross, then there is no Easter either, that takes the divine out of the whole story doesn't it? |
| James - 2/27/2008 |
| Susan You are making the argument for a theory of the atonement first promulgated by Anselm, a medieval theologian. This is known as the Blood Theory. This theory introduces sacral violence back into the heart of Christianity. Jesus is driven out and sacrificed in a charade of justice. The appeal lies in the human desire for revenge. We have preferred a God of cruelty to a God of love. The contradiction is that Jesus killers are guilt free because they acted according to the will of God. Another theory is known as The Love Theory. God reveals God's love for us by sending God's Son to identify with us and to offer his life as proof of the depth of God's love. John 3:16. God is the initiator of Jesus' death. This is child abuse. Yet another theory is the representational theory. Jesus becomes one of us so completely that he takes on all our sin and becomes the greatest of all sinners. Luther helped promulgate this theory. This is still a Christology from above. God is responsible for the death of Jesus. God still commits an unconscionable sin. The theory that Pastor Johnson outlined is known as The Christus Victor Theory. Christology from below repudiates the notion that God killed Jesus. The powers that be killed Jesus Jesus did not come down from heaven to undergo birth from a virgin's womb He experienced rebirth through the baptism of John. |
| George S - 2/27/2008 |
| Susan... Glad to see someone is responding to my article on "Was Jesus subversive?" We need more discussion on this question. I would be interested in your answer to my question. Was Jesus Subversive? I think he was, and that is why he was executed as a criminal. I admit that there are other verses in the Bible that talk about his blood shed for our sins, but what has been neglected is the evidence in the Gospels that Jesus was killed because of what he said and did. It was both the religious authorities and the Roman government that together brought about his crucifixion. The Jews themselves could not have killed him without government involvement. Some religious leaders wanted Jesus dead, right from the start of his ministry. Read Mark 3. So the point I want make is that one the reasons, and I think the main one according to the Gospels, was of what he said and did. He was subversive. And if we choose to follow Jesus, we can be asked to take up our cross, because we too will be considered subersive. I look forward to your answer...Was Jesus Subversive? And thanks James for explaining what I was trying to say. Thank you Susan for taking the time to write. George S Johnson |
| Susan - 2/29/2008 |
James & Rev Johnson, Dictionery definition of subversive: a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system. Using this definition, no I don't think Jesus was subversive to the Roman government. I agree that the religious leaders wanted him dead, but the Jews did not have the power to execute him and had to trump up some charges to get the Romans to accomplish the task. I have had to do some googling to learn what this Christus victor thing is all about so I now have some understanding of what you may be trying to say. But I'm afraid the whole Atonement discussion is pretty deep theology and I don't feel I can really make any contribution to that topic. My growing up years were spent in the captivity of the LCMS and since escaping, I have read my bible and joined a faith group where I feel spiritually fed, not condemned. I cannot find one single reference to the kind of subversion of the government - in fact Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world. But he sure gave the pharisees and scribes a hard time, and did want to uproot the legalism and hypocrisy of the Jewish religion of the time. Who can figure out the mind of God and why he did things the way he did. But I don't think God killed his son, but he did allow it to happen. We are his children and he allows pain and death in our life as well, hard to reconcile with a loving God. I figure there is still evil in the world and ultimately God is loving and will bring us home to him in the endl. My head hurts trying to figure out the 3 or more Atonement theories, and that is all they can ever be. My profession is as a scientist, so theories abound and get disproven all the time, even the big bang is in doubt now. So I will leave it to wiser minds that mine to figure out. Thanks for replying to my comments. I have learned a lot.
|
| Ben - 3/2/2008 |
Perhaps a view from a different faith tradition may help to shed some light on the arguments being presented here. In my own tradition, this is the only sermon read on the night of Pascha. I'm not sure that anyone in any faith tradition has expressed the "why" of Christ's Death and Resurrection better than this. Some of the posters here may be familiar with this, and to them, I apologize. For those not familiar with it, this will provide a different look at the question. For all, I present it as food for thought. Ben The Catechetical Homily of St. John Chrysostom (4th century) Whosoever is a devout lover of God, let him enjoy this beautiful bright Festival. And whosoever is a grateful servant, let him joyously enter into the joy of his Lord. And if any be weary with fasting, let him now receive his reward. If any has toiled from the first hour, let him receive his just debt. If any came after the third, let him gratefully celebrate. If any arrived after the sixth, let him not doubt; for he too shall sustain no loss. If any have delayed to the ninth, let him come without hesitation. If any arrived only at the eleventh hour, let him not be afraid by reason of his delay; for the Master is gracious and receives the last, even as the first. He gives rest to him, who arrives at the eleventh hour, as well as to him, who has labored from the first. He is merciful to the one who delays, and nourishes the first. He gives also to the one, and to the other He is gracious. He accepts the works, as he greets the endeavor. He honors the deed, and the intent He commends. Let all of you then enter into the joy of our Lord. The first and second enjoy your reward. You rich and poor, rejoice together. You temperate and you heedless, honor the day. You who fasted, and you who did not, rejoice today. The Table is richly laden. All of you, fare sumptuously on it. The calf is a fatted one; let no one go away hungry. All of you enjoy the banquet of faith. All of you enjoy the riches of His goodness. Let no one grieve poverty; for the universal Kingdom has been revealed. Let no one grieve over sins; for forgiveness has dawned from the tomb. Let no one fear death; for the Death of our Savior has set us free. He has destroyed it by enduring it. He despoiled Hades, when he descended thereto. He embittered it, having tasted of His flesh. Isaiah foretold this when he cried out: "You, O Hades, have been embittered by encountering Him below." It was embittered, - for it was abolished. It was embittered, - for it was mocked. It was embittered, - for it was slain. It was embittered, - for it was annihilated. It was embittered, - for it is now made captive. It took a body, and, lo, it discovered God. It took earth and, behold! It encountered Heaven. It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it could not see. O death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory? Christ is risen, - and You are annihilated. Christ is risen, - and the demons have fallen. Christ is risen, - and the Angels rejoice. Christ is risen, - and life is liberated. Christ is risen, - and the tomb is emptied of the dead; for Christ, having risen from the dead, has become the first fruits of those who fall asleep. To Him be the glory and the dominion to the Ages of Ages. Amen.
|
| Jack Labusch - 3/8/2008 |
| Thanks for the very moving essay. The theology is way over my head, but I liked the robust discussion. |
| James - 3/17/2008 |
I have been out of town for some time and am now just back. Susan - I think the best Lutheran answer to why did God allow his Son to be killed or even the larger question did God allow Jesus to be killed is contained in Article 18 of our Augsburg Confession. In my opinion, this doctrine of free will is central to Lutheranism but we keep it a well guarded secret. If you ask someone here in the bible belt - where I live- what the doctrine of free will is, you will be told that we have free will to accept or reject Jesus, and your entire life depends on this free will decision. We Lutherans categorically reject this doctrine but if you ask many who sit in our pews the question, you will get the bible belt answer. The Lutheran doctrine goes to the core of the question - who killed Jesus? Our doctrine of free will - first posited by Augustine in the 4th century and then lifted by Melanchthon in the 16th century is "We have free will regarding all things earthly, like how will we love and serve the poor, who will we marry, how will we order society. We have no free will regarding things heavenly, like salvation." We killed Jesus - us human beings. We continue to kill Jesus daily via war, corruption, poverty, and violence. We are free to save and serve the poor and oppressed. Christ showed us the way to God's Kingdom on earth - love one another, reject violence, death has no power over us. That is Christ the Victor. Grace and peace Jim |
| Todd - 3/18/2008 |
| YES! Luke 12:49-53 - 49"I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished! 51Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. 52For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. 53Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." Jesus assuredly brought salvation...but the changes that salvation makes in his people tend to make others fear and despise us.....even within our own families. |
| Todd - 3/18/2008 |
| In addendum to me comments above.....the changes wrought in us by the Holy Spirit can only happen if we are Born Again. A conscious decision made as an adult. John 3:3-6, John 1:13, 1 Peter 1:23, 2 Corinthians 4:16, etc. |
| James - 3/19/2008 |
All free will decisions are conscious decisions and they impact our lives here in God's Kingdom on earth. Those decisions have absolutely nothing to do with things heavenly. Therein is the rub - the bible belt people beileve that they get a ticket to heaven because they accept Jesus and the rest of us are doomed to hell because we believe that we cannot accept Jseus. This notion would be mere silliness if it did not have profound effects on the way these very people treat the Jesus who lives among us. After all, if God condemns non-believers to a life in eternal hell, why should they care if if they starve to death?
|
| Joshua Elliott-McGuffie - 3/19/2008 |
James, You said: We killed Jesus - us human beings. We continue to kill Jesus daily via war, corruption, poverty, and violence. We are free to save and serve the poor and oppressed. Christ showed us the way to God's Kingdom on earth - love one another, reject violence, death has no power over us. That is Christ the Victor. With all due respect, this is not what Blessed Gustav Aulen meant by Christus Victor when he wrote that insightful book. Furthermore, this remark seems to be in direct conflict with what Blessed Dr. Melanchthon says of Christ in Augustant II: ...who was born of the Virgin Mary, truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, that He might reconcile the Father unto us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men. Dr. Luther might not use exactly the same language and philosphical underpinnings of St. Anselm, but to paint the reformers as heirs to the later liberal protestant tradition, in terms of their understanding of the Atonement, is historically inaccurate. Was Christ executed? Yes. Did his suffering, execution, death, descent into Hell, and resurrection reconcile sinful humankind to God the Father? Yes. Does the fact that our Lord was executed make him hip with the kids and subversive? Maybe. Either way, it doesn't have much to do with the salvific work of Jesus Christ, incarnate Word and second person of the blessed Trinity. Josh |
| Darin - 3/20/2008 |
Peace to you, sisters and brothers in Christ, I'm so grateful for this article and conversation...it's about time we pay closer attention to what Jesus did and said--more than our abstract explanations of how his death somehow satisfies God's bloodlust against sin. The blood sacrifice theory tends to condone the same oppressive violence that Jesus rejected and that killed him. Doesn't the cross expose the truth that terrorism is never redemptive, as we see in the cycle of interpersonal violence and the current U.S. policy of perpetual war? With education and maturity, belief in the blood sacrifice interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion fades--it seems that most are disgusted by it. Even if one does accept it (as a cognitive leap), it has scarce relevance for our life here on earth. However, Jesus' self-sacrificing, nonviolent but active, resistance to injustice has been a powerful force for social transformation in many times and places. This should be the church's bold witness for today. May we be an embodiment of Christ's fearless love that overcomes violence and injustice in the only way it can be--confronting the enemy with an insistent and inclusive love, thereby transforming the enemy into a friend. As Paul challenged the church, let us be Christ's ambassadors of justice and reconciliation. |
| Joshua Elliott-McGuffie - 3/20/2008 |
Darin, To assert that education and maturity will cause people to no longer beleive that Christ's sacrifice on the cross restored humankind into right relationship with God the father is condescending to those who do believe it while also seeming to not really understand the theological nuances that have been a part of the great tradition of the Church for millenia. Did Jesus teach us to love each other, even to pray for our enemies? YES! Is God righteously angry over the sin of humankind (e.g. broken personal relationships, war, economic inequity)? YES! Did Jesus, who being truly God is in perfect union with God the Father die and in dying graciously take the sin of humankind so that God's reasonable displeasure with human sin could be satisfied? YES! Is this redemption mysterious and deeply woven into the ambiguity of the most holy triune God? YES! I am not 'disgusted' that God is so self giving that the divine self suffered in self-giving love for humankind. Josh |
| Karen - 3/20/2008 |
| Thank you to all of you who are writing and finding this article as disturbing as I. I was horrified when I read it. To suggest that there is something more or equally important than God forgiving us on the Cross is not only frusterating to me but it is another of the heretical teachings that are becoming so pervasive in our tradition! This article made me angry. There are quickly evolving two Gospels in the ELCA One that is focused on Grace alone, which spurs us to good works and allows us to follow the example of Christ. And the other, which sets Christ's example as greater than who and what he is. The second "gospel" is a social message which reduces us to little more than "good" people who think we have the power to save the world! I say we leave the saving up to Jesus and His Father who sent him! I do not see Jesus as subversive! I believe that he was put to death because of what he said and did but subveresive implies that he set out to do something to overthrow people and prove by his goodness that he was better. Over and Over Christ humbles himself to the position of a lowly servant. The Jewish people who were leaders at that time, were threatened by him, greedy, jealous and petty and chose to arrest him and get him killed. The trick is though that it was their reaction to Jesus and not Jesus' actions that are the reason for the crucifixion! The peoples sin, those at the time and ours, sin is the reason for the crucifixion therefore atonement is our gift in it. "The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life." (Romans 6:23) The only thing we can do of our own power is bring death to ourselves. It is God's free gift that allows us to go out and help in the ways that God commands. Not of our own power but only through the spirit. And if Jesus is Subversive well then the Holy spirit must be too and I want no part of this new religion! |
| Joshua Elliott-McGuffie - 3/21/2008 |
Karen, I think you're right, when the eschatological elements of Christ's death and resurrection are subsumed by claims that he is mainly an ethical teacher, then we loose the gospel. Furthermore, when God is accused of condoning bloodlust, we forget that God the Father and God the Son are united in by the holy spirit in the mystery of the holy trintiy and that the first person of the trinity sorrowed at the crucifixion in union with the second person. Josh |
| Karen - 3/21/2008 |
| Exactly! Thank you Josh for your comments! |
| James - 3/25/2008 |
Josh and Karen Both of you miss the point that Jesus' entire life among us was directed at overcoming the "powers that be." When he told Pilate that "I am not of this world" he did not mean that he resided in the sweet bye and bye in some undefined afterlife. He meant that he would did not play by the rules of Pilate's world. In that sense he was clearly a subversive. My understanding of Christianity - mainly from the work of Walter Wink (I commend to you his book Engaging the Powers published by Fortress Press) is that the early Christians were also subversive. They were not allowed to serve in the Roman army because of their subversive culture. Then the church made a Faustian deal with the devil in the 4th century when Constantine embraced the church and gave it authority over the afterlife so long as the church supported the state. Thereafter no one could serve in the Army UNLESS he was a Christian. The church has suffered ever since. If it is your point that the church has no business in trying to overcome the powers that be that oppress the poor - even by subversion if necessary - that I submit that the devil has done his work well. Those are strong words - I know. I am shaped by my life experiences. I am a 61 year old Vietnam Vet and have seen the evil of war up close. Grace and peace to you
Jim
|
Join the discussion
Type your comments in the form below and click [add comments]
Please keep your comments brief and on-topic. We reserve the right to edit or remove inappropriate entries. E-mail lutheran@thelutheran.org with any problems or questions.
