The biblical tradition and the accounts of passion there-in are some of the crucial steps that bring the human culture and pattern of violence into light and perspective. According to Mark S. Heim, violence is deeply rooted in the gospel and Christian culture, and this has raised so many debates among Christians and theology critiques over the years. According to these critiques, Christianity is just but a religion that; condones violence, encourages anti-Semitism, fosters passiveness of the people in times of oppression, and depicts God as a cruel being who demands the blood of the innocent for restitution purposes (Fulford, 2008). Heim analyzes Girard’s work in an attempt to reshape this depiction of Christianity, and to determine the attempts made in the biblical literature to find solidarity with victims and not view them as scape-goats.
First and foremost, Jesus’ death on the cross was a significant moment for Christians. His suffering and the torture he went through in the hands of the Romans as clearly narrated in the biblical literature was not all in vain. His death and suffering is God’s way of identifying with the victims who go through the same torture and suffering in life (Fulford, 2008). When Jesus was tortured, crucified and buried, he resurrected from the dead on the third day. This is a way of God’s assurance to the victims of sacred violence that the torture and violence will come to an end. Through Jesus’ resurrection, God was trying to assure Christians and victims that through him, all suffering comes to an end; or as Heim phrases, it, “severing of the sacred from sacred violence” (Fulford, 2008). According to Heim, Jesus’ death on the cross is a way of providing insight and solidarity among victims, and reassuring them that His death was for their sake.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to the scripture, Jesus did not hesitate to die on the cross for the sake of our sins. He was willing to face death for the sake of our deliverance from sin. People may view this decision as arbitrary, but in the real sense, it was not. It was not Jesus’ idea to suffer and die on the cross. This was God’s decision. He asked Jesus to down to earth and die for our sins so that we can be delivered from the impending doom. Jesus, being the obedient son that He was, did not hesitate to honour his father and do as he was told. Therefore, sacrificing his only son for the sake of the deliverance of humankind was God’s way of finding solidarity with victims. The human race was the victim of an impending doom due to our sinful ways. God saw that the human race desperately needed deliverance and He chose to have mercy on the humans as victims, and sacrifice His only son in the process so that we could be saved (Fulford, 2008).
According to Heim, the biblical literature has been criticized so many times in the manner in which it openly paints the brutal violence that went on during those days. For example, God asking Abraham to sacrifice his only son who he had waited for decades to have, prophets being tortured and persecuted, Joseph being thrown in the lion’s death, and most criticized, sending his son to die on the cross to save humankind. Critiques view all these actions as cruel and an illustration of how cruel God is (Fulford, 2008). However, this is not the case because this was God’s way of finding solidarity with the victims. For example, by asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, God was just really testing Abraham’s faith as a way of confirming whether he was ready for the covenant restoration he was about to do in his life. By letting His only son die on the Cross, and having it vividly described in the biblical literature; from the severe whipping to the piercing of his rib with a spear, God had a plan of identifying with the victims. For example, when Jesus was persecuted and then crucified, the centurion confessed, “Surely, this man was innocent” (Fulford, 2008). In this case, God was identifying with the victim, Jesus. He was wrongly accused and he did not deserve to die, hence, He was the victim in this case. Therefore the explicit scripture on the violence that the victims in the Bible went through was meant to ensure that such atrocities, for example, unjustified death or persecution, were frowned upon in society and that more innocent people did not fall victims of such atrocities again. The biblical literature, therefore, ensures that such violent things are not normalized in society and that the victims who may find themselves in such situations find pity and favour from the rest of the people and God because such actions are unjust and a sin against God.
Before the crucification of Jesus, when he had the last supper with his disciples, he revealed to them that one of them would betray him, and all they did was ask, “Is it I, Lord?” (Fulford, 2008). This fact has been criticized by many theology critiques who believe that at this point, the disciples would be well aware of whether or not they were going to betray Jesus. Even when Jesus told Peter that he would deny him three times and then hear the cock crow after the third time, Peter did not believe him, and he thought that this was impossible. However, this did happen, and when he denied Jesus for the third time, the cock did crow as Jesus had told him and this is when he remembered Jesus’ words, “You will deny me three times.” (Fulford, 2008). These were Jesus’ disciples. They ought to have known better; according to the critics. However, God was identifying with this victims and finding solidarity in them because sometimes when we become part of the mob, we are likely to be the last people to know how things end. Therefore, in this case, God did not treat Jesus’ disciples as scapegoats for betraying or denying Him; rather, in this case, they were victims.
According to the biblical literature, Jesus died for us. He died for our sins so that we would not receive eternal damnation because of our sins. Critiques have argued that many Christians have died for the sake of the gospel, so how then is Jesus’ death unique? Jesus’ death was unique because it was the sacrifice that ended all sacrifices (Fulford, 2008). It was his blood that was shed on the cross, and not just the blood of a sacrificed animal like the prophets used to do year after year. It was His blood, and this makes His death unique. The scripture says, “For then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26). This means that Jesus’ death was unique and by crucifying more people, his crucification on the cross would have no meaning. Therefore, his death was meant to be the last; to stop more victims from suffering unjust death because of our sins; to depend on His blood alone as for the sake of our redemption; to ensure that there were no more victims of violence (Fulford, 2008).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the scripture provides many examples of how certain issues were dealt with in the past. In the Old Testament, communities fought each other to obtain fertile land and food for the people. However, Christians should focus on the deeper meaning of the scripture. The most important thing is that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and in doing so, he delivered us from eternal damnation. In doing so, he wanted us to remember his suffering and death so that we can avoid putting more people through the same. He wanted to be the last victim of the suffering and violence He was subjected to. He did not want us to be victims anymore.
Reference
Fulford, B. (2008). Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross – By S. Mark Heim. Modern Theology , 24(2), 311-313.
