Current ideas about the Crucifixion were not there in early Christianity

[starroute]

http://www.frederica.com/orthodox/meaning_of_his_suffering.html

This is an article by someone writing from an Eastern Orthodox viewpoint -- which remains far closer to where Christianity started out than Western Christianity does (either Catholic or Protestant). It's fairly long, with several afterthoughts, and difficult to summarize, but here are what I take to be its main points:

* An emphasis on brutality and suffering in the story of the Crucifixion, as exemplified by Mel Gibson's "The Passion," is very typical of Western European attitudes since the Middle Ages, but is not found either in earlier periods or further east.

* The crucial change took place in Europe in the 11th century and was typical of the legalistic attitudes coming into place at that time. It recast the sacrifice of Jesus specifically as a transaction with God -- part blood atonement, part double-entry accounting -- whose purpose was to get the sins of mankind off the books by "paying" for them with with the blood of Christ.

* The earlier attitude was far less rational and more mythopoeic. It cast the main action as occurring not between Jesus and God, but between Jesus and Satan. It did not put any price on divine forgiveness, but assumed that mankind had fallen captive to Satan as a result of original sin. Christ's mission was to become human, die, descend into Hell, and free the captives.

From a modern, Western point of view, this earlier mythic form of the Christ-story might seem like something out of a video game. But from a more traditional viewpoint, the West comes across as bloody-minded, vengeful, and determined to exact every last ounce of payment for any perceived wrongs. (Which, of course, it is.)

The article itself doesn't draw any political conclusions. But I think that what it has to say about all of us in the West -- whether Christian or not -- and the kind of God we take as our role-model is both illuminating and sobering.

[rogerashton]

1. My impression was

that the blood-sacrifice transaction had pretty deep Hebrew roots.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. the blood sacrifice thing predates Abraham by nobody knows how

many millennia. The stories of Mithra, Jesus and the squillion others like it were popular from Persia to Palestine and beyond for eons.

The message of all is simple: love God, love each other, man's inhumanity to man is a Bad Thing.

[roughsatori]

2. Interesting post, Earlier Christianity stressed the INCARNATION

The miraculous was that GOD was made Man. That was the stunning, enlightened and transformational, theology derived from the Birth of the God/Child. It was only later, after Medieval times, that the Passion and Resurrection where taught as THE transcendent meaningful event. Even now the Passion and Resurrection are tropes much more easily used as tools to control the behavior of "believers." The Incarnation resonates more fully with me--and is one that lessons the need of the "Clergy."

I have a very bad headache and apologize for my lack of clarity. I bookmarked your link and will re-read it later. Thanks for the post.

[rogerashton]

9. Paul preaches

the "faith in Christ and him crucified, " does he not?

[KC21304]

3. Thanks for the great article.

I'm very interested in this and will have to wait to finish later. I also will pass it on. Thanks.

[papau]

4. What’s important is not that Jesus SUFFERRED for us,but that JESUS

What’s important is not that Jesus SUFFERRED for us, but that JESUS suffered for us.

I also prefer to go back to 3rd to 5th century understandings in most things.

The legal, or the cause and effect requirement folks thought "science like" is a bad path - indeed even science has given up on cause and effect - at least sometimes!

[mzmolly]

6. Much of Modern Christianity is not like original Chrisianity from what I

understand.

[madrchsod]

7. was it a cross

or was it the stake? i have read where the cross wasn`t used in these times but a pole to impail people on. our basis for the christian church bases itself in the greco-roman world of the roman empire and the rantings of paul but what about the coptic church which was founded by john?

[papau]

8. Romans used a cross, Jews did not, he was killed by the Romans

:-)

[On the Road]

10. The Question is How Much Paul Reflected "Early Christianity"

For several centuries, there was a part of the church descended from Jesus' family and the people that knew him. They stayed Jewish, observed the law, including dietary restrictions. They were Paul's opponents, and were referred to repeatedly in the epistles. At some point they became referred to as the Ebionites, or the "poor".

By Paul's own account, he was not well acquainted with the existing group of believers, and for fourteen years only had a single meeting with Jesus' brother James. That suggests that most of Paul's beliefs were formed in profound isolation from the group of people who knew Jesus in the flesh.

The big question is whether the Ebionites represent the earliest, pre-Paul strata of beliefs about Jesus. They apparently did not believe that Jesus was divine, born of a virgin, or possibly even that he was resurrected.

Strangely enough, the idea of crucifixion as an atonement seemed to derive more from Paul than from the loyal Jewish part of the church. Maybe it had something to do with his exposure to bloody Mithraic rituals as he was growing up in Kurdistan.

But the meaning of the crucifixion has always been a problem for theologians. Everyone takes it for granted today, but none of the theological explanations given have been particularly satisfying.

Some modern theologians subscribe to the "car accident" theory of the crucifixion, that it was never part of the plan and was supposed to happen.

Personally, I look at events like the cleansing of the temple and the and the triumphal procession as provocations meant to bring about Jesus' arrest. I believe his cry of "why have you forsaken me" indicates that he expected to be rescued by God rather than die on the cross. I think he expected God to intervene and kick the Roman out, but only if he "stepped out on faith", put his life on the line, and made it impossible for God not to act.

[ThoughtCriminal]

11. Is atonement logical?

For many years it just did not make sense to me logically or even as part of some metaphysical balance sheet, that the suffering of one innocent being could atone for the sins of a different guilty being.

After being a parent, I looked at it a bit differently. When one of my kids hurt someone, cheated or some other common childhood "sin", it was not really their punishment that seemed to bother them the most. It was when their behavior injured their mother or myself that they really seem to show remorse. I felt the same way towards my parents.

The way one might view this in the context of the Crucifixion is that if Jesus suffered for everyone's sins, then one is adding to his suffering every time we sin. Therefore we should avoid sin not only for the injury it casuses us, but for the pain the Jesus suffered. I think that's a bit difficult for many people to get a handle on because their sins are "Today" and the Crucifixion occured in the past.