Is Atonement Theology Inherently Anti-Semitic

[Guest billmc]

You are aware Jesus spoke far more of Hell than Heaven? There are 162 references to Hell in the NT and over 70 of them were spoken by Jesus!

 

Certainly I'm aware of that, Doug. But, in context, I think Jesus was speaking of destruction in the Valley of Gehenna that came true for the Jewish nation in the War of the Jews (AD67-70), not in some future post-partum Greek notion of everlasting torment.

 

But, going back to the subject of this thread, if, as pop Christianity says, the wages of sin is (not death, but) everlasting torture, then Jesus was certainly no substitute. If Christians do want to insist that Jesus somehow took their punishment, then the wages of sin being death still, IMO, holds. Jesus did not, according to the scriptures, suffer everlasting torment.

[Guest billmc]

The word "perish" in John 3:16 is translated from the Greek "apollumi" meaning either (1) to be lost (2) to perish or be destroyed (in this case, both interpretations are correct). Notice the word destroyed, NOT die. In 1 Cor 15:53, perishable (corruptible in the KJV) is translated from the Greek "phthartos" meaning decayed, i.e. (by implication) perishable -- corruptible (imperfect in this context) which make perfect sense in the interpretation of the entirety of the verse. Numbers 17:12 the word perish is translated from the Hebrew word 'abad' meaning to wander away, i.e. lose oneself; by implication to perish (causative, destroy) Notice, again, the word destroy, NOT die.

 

I've studied most of the biblical references to the word "perish" throughout the Bible, Doug, and I've never found any of them to mean "to exist somewhere else in a conscious state of eternal torment." If you want to interpret "perish" that way, that is, of course, your choice. All I'm saying is that I'm not convinced that "perish" means "to suffer everlasting torture."

[JosephM]

You are aware Jesus spoke far more of Hell than Heaven? There are 162 references to Hell in the NT and over 70 of them were spoken by Jesus!

 

Doug

 

 

That seems to me to be a myth propagated by John Hagee and others. What NT are you searching?

A simple word search of the KJV NT for the word hell or Hell will show only 34 occurrences

A simple word search of the KJV NT for the word Heaven or heaven will show 287 occurrences

 

Jesus spoke many times more about heaven than he did hell.

 

Doug, Where are you getting that data? Perhaps you can enlighten me?

 

Joseph

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

 

 

You are aware Jesus spoke far more of Hell than Heaven? There are 162 references to Hell in the NT and over 70 of them were spoken by Jesus!

 

Doug

And the doctrine of hell doesn't appear in the OT. In the OT, the afterlife is Sheol which literally means the grave and Ecclesiastes explicitly states we all go to the same place when we die.

[GeorgeW]

And the doctrine of hell doesn't appear in the OT. In the OT, the afterlife is Sheol which literally means the grave and Ecclesiastes explicitly states we all go to the same place when we die.

Neon,

 

I don't think one can make a sweeping generalization about the OT. These texts written over a period of 1,000 years or more and reflect the views of many different authors living under very different circumstances with quite different beliefs. There was a development in the concept of an afterlife over a period of time. Prior to the Diaspora, there was no concept of afterlife of any kind. Later there developed the idea of afterlife and a concept of Gehenna as the final abode of the wicked.

 

George

[Guest billmc]

Perhaps what Doug is referring to, and he can certainly correct me if my assumption is wrong, is that Jesus spoke of "going to hell" much more often than he did of "going to heaven." Certainly there are more occurences of the word "heaven" in the NT than there are of the word "hell", but much of that is due to the fact that the Jews revered God's name so highly that they would interject "heaven" in place of "God", such as Matthew's "kingdom of heaven."

 

From my own studies, I'm not convinced that Jesus taught that we, as humans, would go to heaven. To me, Jesus spoke of heaven as something that came to earth, the notion that the dwelling of God was moving into human hearts.

 

I'm no longer a literalist when it comes to the scriptures, but if I were I would have to say that the Bible does not teach the immortality of the soul, that God alone is inherently mortal (1 Tim 6:16) and that immortality does not come to the wicked to enable them to suffer, but only to the righteous who seek immortality (Rom 2:7; 2 Tim 1:10). While the Bible does teach that everyone will be raised for the judgment, it appears that the wicked are allowed to die again (the second death). And it seems that this death is "eternal" in the sense that they never come to life again.

 

Now, I'm not saying that the above paragraph reflects my own personal view. Personally, I'm rather agnostic on the whole issue of the afterlife. But I simply don't think that the Bible teaches the immortality of the soul, and those who push everlasting torment require the immortality of the soul for their doctrine to "work." For those who hold to everlasting torment, everyone gets eternal life, they just spend that life in one of two places -- and I simply don't believe the scriptures really support that view. If I did believe in the immortality of the soul (and I don't know whether I do or not), I wouldn't be getting that belief from the Bible -- maybe from the Greeks or the Gnostics, but not from the Bible as we currently have it.

[GeorgeW]

Perhaps what Doug is referring to, and he can certainly correct me if my assumption is wrong, is that Jesus spoke of "going to hell" much more often than he did of "going to heaven." Certainly there are more occurences of the word "heaven" in the NT than there are of the word "hell", but much of that is due to the fact that the Jews revered God's name so highly that they would interject "heaven" in place of "God", such as Matthew's "kingdom of heaven."

Bill,

 

Your assumption is correct. In a word search of an online NRSV, I get 281 hits for 'heaven' in the NT. I get 15 hits on 'Hell' and 9 for 'Hades.' The ratio is almost 12:1.

 

George

[Guest billmc]

And the doctrine of hell doesn't appear in the OT. In the OT, the afterlife is Sheol which literally means the grave and Ecclesiastes explicitly states we all go to the same place when we die.

 

I agree with both you and George on this, NG. The first part of the OT does seem to hold to "dust thou art, to dust thou shall return." The most ancient Jews seemed to believe that everyone die and, once in the grave, "the dead know nothing" (Ecc 9:5).

 

It seems that notions of the afterlife grew up during the Diaspora when the Jews struggled with how God could be just and true to his promises to them as a nation when justice and restoration did not happen in this life. Possibly under the influence of early Greek or Babylonian thinking, many of them started to believe in a resurrection when God would fulfill his promises to them. As is well known, the Sadduccees rejected such a notion, maybe because they were more literal in their interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures, I don't know.

 

But it is odd that, within the over-arching story found in pop Christianity, it holds to what the serpent told Eve in the Garden, "You will not surely die." Pop Christianity says that everyone is immortal, that everyone lives forever, that *we* don't die, only our body does. The immortality of the soul is (or was) one of the tenets of evangelical Christianity. John Stott, a well-known evangelical, has broken ranks with that understanding though. Many Christians are rejecting the doctrine of hell because of what it implies about God's nature and justice. For the same reason, they are reconsidering the doctrine of the atonement for what it implies about God's wrath.

[GeorgeW]

The first part of the OT does seem to hold to "dust thou art, to dust thou shall return." The most ancient Jews seemed to believe that everyone die and, once in the grave, "the dead know nothing" (Ecc 9:5).

 

Bill,

 

I have read this described as 'OTW' (Old Testament Wisdom theology). The idea was that the reward for righteousness and punishment for wickedness are in this life. The book of Job explores this question ad nauseam. Job's 'friends' cannot accept that he was blameless, otherwise why would these disasters have been visited on him. However, the play doesn't end with a clear conclusion to this question. But Job is compensated for his losses and awarded compensatory damages as well.

 

George

[JosephM]

Perhaps what Doug is referring to, and he can certainly correct me if my assumption is wrong, is that Jesus spoke of "going to hell" much more often than he did of "going to heaven." Certainly there are more occurences of the word "heaven" in the NT than there are of the word "hell", but much of that is due to the fact that the Jews revered God's name so highly that they would interject "heaven" in place of "God", such as Matthew's "kingdom of heaven."

 

 

Perhaps that is what Doug is referring to, perhaps he will clarify his understanding. Yet the kingdom (domain of the king) of Heaven or the kingdom of God or Heaven is used synonymously in the gospels in parables and sayings. That abode , either way, and whether spoken of as New Jerusalem or the kingdom of God or Heaven is one and the same since they are all described as the abode of God and that nothing that defiles can enter. Whether heaven comes to us or we go to heaven is just semantics. The good news was not about hell but rather heaven and Jesus made it plain in Luke 17:20, it was not with ocular evidence but found within which i expect if there is a hell it is experienced the same way. It is also my personal view that both are here now and perhaps in an afterlife of sorts and can be experienced as such. The good news (gospel) IMO and experience is that you can change your thinking and enter now. Or perhaps in the fullness of times all will enter, each in their own order so that Christ may be all in all. To see heaven or hell as a physical place is against reason as we know all that is physical has a beginning and end (temporal) yet both are portrayed as everlasting which classify them biblically as eternal or spiritual. And though those states of living in might be eternal, residence can be changed with ones thinking.

 

Just my 2 cents,

Joseph

[Guest billmc]

The good news was not about hell but rather heaven and Jesus made it plain in Luke 17:20, it was not with ocular evidence but found within which i expect if there is a hell it is experienced the same way.

 

That's much the way I see it also, Joseph. Brian McLaren wrote a wonderful book called, "The Secret Message of Jesus", in which he postulates that Jesus' message was not centered in where we go after we die, but in God's kingdom coming to earth today. Obviously, this is still a metaphorical image. I wouldn't so much use the word "coming" as "being manifested." I interpret the "second coming of Jesus" in much the same way, that his "coming" or parousia (presence) is "on earth" today in his Body. By this, I don't strictly mean the Church, I mean anywhere and in anyone who exhibits what I would call Christlikeness, even if they have never heard the name of Jesus.

 

Similarly, Jesus defined "eternal life", not as a *place* we go to after we die, but as knowing God here and now. So, to me, again speaking metaphorically, eternal life is life on a higher plane, not a ticket to go to heaven later.

 

Of course, Christians can and do wrangle over all these different words. Sometimes that is beneficial, especially if we are seeking to understand the Bible within its own Jewish context. But I suspect that most progressive Christians reject the notion of a literal hell because it simply doesn't line up with their experiences of God as love. I appreciate what the doctrine of hell points to -- that we should examine our lives to see if we are living for self or for the sake of others. As George has said, there are "real world" consequences for living uncompassionate lives. But it is also pretty well documented that many people have been psychologically and spiritually harmed (and some put to death) over this doctrine. Therefore, though we certainly don't want to enter into unending and unprofitable debate, it is prudent to consider the implications of this doctrine from time to time.

[Neon Genesis]

I agree with both you and George on this, NG. The first part of the OT does seem to hold to "dust thou art, to dust thou shall return." The most ancient Jews seemed to believe that everyone die and, once in the grave, "the dead know nothing" (Ecc 9:5).

 

It seems that notions of the afterlife grew up during the Diaspora when the Jews struggled with how God could be just and true to his promises to them as a nation when justice and restoration did not happen in this life. Possibly under the influence of early Greek or Babylonian thinking, many of them started to believe in a resurrection when God would fulfill his promises to them. As is well known, the Sadduccees rejected such a notion, maybe because they were more literal in their interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures, I don't know.

We actually studied this in my World Civilizations class in college about how that most of the more recent Jewish and Christian beliefs about heaven and hell and Satan versus God don't come from the Hebrew scriptures but they come from Jewish and Christian exposure to the dualistic philosophies of Zoroastrianism.

 

Many Christians are rejecting the doctrine of hell because of what it implies about God's nature and justice. For the same reason, they are reconsidering the doctrine of the atonement for what it implies about God's wrath.

Even for those Christians who still believe in hell, while they have no problems assigning whole groups of people to hell like gays and atheists, if you ask them if a specific individual is going to hell, they immediately start to squirm about the issue and fall back on the "only God can judge others" cop out to get out of having to answer an uncomfortable question.

[Guest billmc]

For me, perhaps what these topics of atonement and hell come down to is this: Does God use redemptive violence? Does God sanction or commit physical violence as long as there is a bigger purpose to it?

 

I can’t deny that the Bible starts off this way. Allegedly, God kills almost all of humanity in the flood. He wipes out Sodom and Gomorrah. He sends plague after plague upon Egypt and then kills all of the firstborn of the Egyptians. He commands the Israelites to kill their neighbors, not even allowing women, children, or animals to remain alive. And, of course, the OT sacrificial system, the reference for the atonement, is based upon the notion that God demands blood in order to secure the forgiveness of sins.

 

I also can’t deny that the Bible seems to end up this way. Allegedly, Jesus returns to kill almost all of humanity. We get seven scrolls, seven trumpets, seven vials – all containing the wrath of God which exacerbates human suffering to the nth degree. Despite whatever the atonement of Christ was supposed to accomplish between God and man 2000 years ago, the Jesus that returns in the book of Revelation looks nothing like the Jesus of the gospels. He is no longer the suffering servant, he has become the one who will not love and forgive his enemies, the one who comes to make humanity suffer.

 

And yet, the Jesus of the gospels was nothing like this. While he did call for people to choose to follow him, he rebukes his disciples for wanting to call down fire from heaven to destroy God’s enemies. Rather than supporting redemptive suffering, he heals people. Rather than causing human death, he was said to raise the dead to life. He was, according to the gospels, the source of Life itself. He never once killed anyone or cast anyone into hell. Not once.

 

If we, as Christians, see the character of God most fully (or at least to a high degree) in the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, then don’t we need to reconsider our notions of redemptive violence? Sure, Jesus taught on hell. But it is one thing to tell your audience, “If you don’t turn from your violent ways against the Romans, they will destroy you” and quite another to allegedly teach, “If you don’t pray this specific prayer, God will torture you forevermore in everlasting flames.”

 

I admit, there are a lot of different portrayals of God in the scriptures. We can find plenty of “redemptive violence” portraits of him if that is what we are looking for. But it seems to me, at least when it comes to Jesus, that God is telling us that it is through love and compassion that we and the world are transformed, not through violence and war. If God is love and if she is the epitome of the fruit of the Spirit, then I, for one, don’t put a whole lot of stock in redemptive violence – either at the cross or in the popular notions of hell.

[Guest billmc]

One last contribution to this topic and then I'll shut up for a while.

 

As has been brought out, and as most of us on this forum know, the Bible is not a monolithic book with one message and one point-of-view. It is more akin to a tapestry with a whole bunch of threads woven together, some threads identical, some similar, and some very much contrasting with others. Therefore, there is no one way to interpret the atonement or the cross of Christ.

 

Nevertheless, that event does stand within the culture of first century Judaism, and while I’m not an authority on it, I think it is perhaps helpful to consider how Jewish notions of violence figured into the gospel accounts of the crucifixion and how, perhaps, Jesus himself might have challenged those notions.

 

The first notion is what I might call “liberation violence.” This is the notion that God will call for or sanction or personally commit violence against humanity in order to deliver one group of people from another group of people. In this view, God is a mighty warrior. And this view is most notable in the Exodus stories.

 

The second notion is what I might call “punishment violence.” This is the notion that God makes people suffer for their sins until they turn back to him. In this view, God is a chastising parent. And this view is most notable in the Exile stories.

 

The third notion is what I might call “apocalyptic violence.” This is the notion that God will, at some point, supernaturally intervene on behalf of the righteous and us violence to crush the oppressors of God’s people. In this view, God is the vindicator and he and he alone will set things wrong. This view is most notable in Daniel, in Job, and, of course, in Revelation.

 

But, and I think this is important, all of these violence views are also to be found in the gospels. The Jews wanted Jesus to be their “king of kings” and to, if not kill, at least subjugate the Romans. The cross is interpreted to be the defeat of evil by the powers of righteous – Christus victor. The cross is also seen to be, in some sense, God no longer exiling humanity from himself. Jesus “takes our punishment” and makes peace between us and God. And, of course, the cross is also seen, especially in an anti-Semitic view, as Jesus’ reason to return in the apocalypse and have his revenge.

 

Yet, despite all of these different notions of violence, it is an undisputed fact that the early church, for at least three hundred years, was pacifistic in their outlook. Why was that? Did they know something that most of us don’t? Or have, at least, forgotten? Did they know that Jesus’ death was not the epitome of “interventional violence,” but the epitome of “invitational compassion”? Put crudely, if there was ever a man who should have been delivered from the hands of evil, if there was ever a man who didn’t need to be punished, if there was ever a man on behalf of whom God should have intervened to “save” (to rescue from the power of evil by destroying the evildoers), it was this rabbi from Nazareth. And yet…God sits on his hands and lets his son die. If ever there was a moment when God’s wrath should have been unleashed in all of its fury with the whole of humanity swept into Dante’s burning inferno, it should have been in those moments. And yet we hear a voice from that cross, not calling for the death of his enemies, but crying, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

 

We still don’t. Myself most of all.

[Neon Genesis]

Even accepting Jesus believed in some sort of hellfire, Jesus never condemned anyone simply for having the "wrong" beliefs. The majority of time when Jesus condemned someone, he was aiming it at religious hypocrisy and he praised the faith of a pagan Roman slave for having greater faith than the religious hypocrites.